the rudolf report

8/4/2019 The Rudolf Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-rudolf-report 1/459



C OLOR I MAGES

I

Color Image 2: Exterior southwest wall of the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of BW 5b in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp: a deep blue discoloration, caused

by cyanide compounds which penetrated the entire wall over the decadessince WWII and formed the blue pigment with iron compounds contained incement and bricks. This pigment is unaffected by 55 years of weathering.

Color Image 1: Inside of the ruins of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crema-torium II. The arrow points to the photograph taking location (see chapter 8.3.3.). Note: Not the slightest trace of blue discoloration can be found onthe walls.

Color pictures 1-4: © Karl Philipp



II

G ERMAR RUDOLF · T HE RUDOLF R EPORT

Color Image 3: Northwest room of the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of BW 5a in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. The external walls (background and tothe right) show an intensive blue discoloration caused by the application of Zyklon B (HCN). The internal wall to the left was added later and is therefore

free of cyanide residues. Color Image 4 (inset): Exterior of a wall of thesame part of BW 5a. Cyanide penetrated the wall and caused blue stains.

Color Image 5: Blue discoloration of the exterior wall of disinfestation instal-lation barrack 41 in Majdanek camp ( Bad und Desinfektion I ), caused by theapplication of Zyklon B. © C. Mattogno



Color Image 6: Blue discoloration of the ceiling of the large Zyklon B disin-

festation chamber, barrack 41 in Majdanek camp ( Bad und Desinfektion I ),caused by the application of Zyklon B. © C. Mattogno

Color Image 7: Blue discoloration of the interior of the walls of chamber III,disinfestation installation barrack 41 ( Bad und Desinfektion I ) in Majdanek camp, caused by the application of Zyklon B. Color Image 8 (inset): East wall of this chamber. © C. Mattogno

C OLOR I MAGES

III



Color Image 10 (left): Blue discoloration of the east exterior wall of theZyklon B disinfestation installation in the Stutthof camp. Color Image 11(right): section enlargement. © C. Mattogno

Color Image 9: Blue discoloration of the interior walls of the Zyklon B disin-festation installation in the Stutthof camp. © C. Mattogno


IV



THE RUDOLF REPORT Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects

of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz



Dedicated to the unknown thousands of Germans

now suffering political persecution in their own country

All readers are reminded that all income from sales of this book and similar publications is intended for revisionists, who are, for themost part, subject to governmental terror and have frequently been fi-nancially ruined as a result of that terror. Persons wishing to supportrevisionism are kindly requested to refrain from illegal copying, and to buy and distribute the book in the proper manner.

The Publishers



Germar Rudolf

Certified Chemist

THE

RUDOLF

REPORT

Expert Report onChemical and

Technical Aspectsof the ‘Gas Chambers’of Auschwitz



HOLOCAUST Handbooks Series, vol. 2:

Germar Rudolf:The Rudolf Report.

Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspectsof the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz.Translated by Carlos Porter, Michael Humphrey,James Damon, and the author.Theses & Dissertations Press, Imprint of Castle Hill Publishers,Chicago (Illinois), March 2003.Paperback: ISBN 0-9679856-5-XHardcover: ISBN 0-9679856-6-8ISSN 1529-7748

First German edition:Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (ed.):

Das Rudolf Gutachten.Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit vonCyanidverbindungen in den “Gaskammern” von Auschwitz.Cromwell Press, London, July 1993 (ISBN 1-898419-00-0)

Second German edition:Germar Rudolf:

Das Rudolf Gutachten.Gutachten über die “Gaskammern” von AuschwitzCastle Hill Publishers, Hastings, April 2001 (ISBN 1-902619-03-X)

Distribution Australia/Asia: Peace Books, PO Box 3300, Norwood, 5067, Australia

Distribution Rest of World: Castle Hill PublishersUK: PO Box 118, Hastings TN34 3ZQUSA: PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625

Set in Times New Roman



5

Table of ContentsPage

1. Prelude............................................................................................ 11 1.1. Slow Death in U.S. Gas Chambers .......................................... 11 1.2. Hydrogen Cyanide—a Dangerous Poison................................ 15 1.3. The Acid that Causes Blue Stains ............................................ 20

2. The Coup........................................................................................ 23 2.1. Fred Leuchter on Auschwitz and Majdanek............................. 23 2.2. Damage Control ....................................................................... 26

3. The Origins .................................................................................... 29 3.1. On the Problem ........................................................................ 32 3.2. On Politics................................................................................ 36

4. A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz ........... 39 4.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 39 4.2. The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination ...................... 39

4.3. A Definition of Forensic Science............................................. 41 4.4. Forensic Science and Auschwitz.............................................. 42 4.4.1. Forensics in the Courts...........................................................42

4.4.1.1. The 1946 Cracow Auschwitz Trial ...................................... 42 4.4.1.2. The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial .......................... 44 4.4.1.3. The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial....................................... 45

4.4.2. Forensics Outside the Courts..................................................46 4.4.2.1. In Search of Mass Graves .................................................... 46

4.4.2.2. Faurisson and the Consequences ......................................... 46 5. Auschwitz ....................................................................................... 49

5.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 49 5.1.1. “Opera During the Holocaust ................................................ 49 5.1.2. On the History of the Camp ...................................................51

5.2. Epidemics and the Defense Against them................................ 59 5.2.1. Danger of Epidemics..............................................................59

5.2.2. Epidemic Control with Zyklon B ...........................................60 5.2.3. Epidemic Control in Auschwitz ............................................. 65




6

5.2.3.1. Terminology Used and Responsibilities...............................65 5.2.3.2. Procedures Used...................................................................67 5.2.3.3. Results..................................................................................68 5.2.3.4. Basic Policy Decisions .........................................................69 5.2.3.5. The Army Medical Officer...................................................70 5.2.3.6. Short-Wave Delousing Facility ............................................73

5.2.4. Disinfestation Installations BW 5a und 5b .............................73 5.3. ‘Gas Chamber’ in the Auschwitz I Main Camp ....................... 78 5.4. ‘Gas Chambers’ in Birkenau Camp.......................................... 88

5.4.1. Crematoria II and III...............................................................88 5.4.1.1. Starting Situation..................................................................88

5.4.1.2. The Obsessive Search for “Criminal Traces” ......................94 5.4.1.2.1. New Cellars Stairways .......................................................95 5.4.1.2.2. Gassing Cellar, Undressing Room, and Showers ...............96 5.4.1.2.3. “Gas-tight Doors” for Crematorium II .............................103 5.4.1.2.4. Ventilation Installations....................................................107 5.4.1.2.5. Pre-heated Morgues..........................................................108 5.4.1.2.6. “Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment ” .........109 5.4.1.2.7. “Gas Testers” and “Indicator Devices for HCN

Residues” ...........................................................................111 5.4.1.2.8. Zyklon B Introduction Holes and Columns......................113

5.4.1.2.9. Conclusions ......................................................................133 5.4.2. Crematoria IV and V ............................................................135 5.4.3. Farmhouses 1 and 2 ..............................................................139

5.4.4. The Drainage System in Birkenau....................................... 141 5.4.4.1. Background: Eyewitness Accounts ...................................141 5.4.4.2. The Ground Water Table in Birkenau ...............................141 5.4.4.3. Open-Air Incineration in Pits.............................................143

5.5. Construction Conclusions....................................................... 145 6. Formation and Stability of Iron Blue ........................................ 151

6.1. Introduction ............................................................................ 151 6.2. Instances of Damages to Buildings ........................................ 152 6.3. Properties of Hydrogen Cyanide, HCN.................................. 155 6.4. Composition of Iron Blue....................................................... 158

6.4.1. Overview ..............................................................................158 6.4.2. Excursus ...............................................................................158

6.5. Formation of Iron Blue........................................................... 159



T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

7

6.5.1. Overview.............................................................................. 159 6.5.2. Water Content ......................................................................161

6.5.2.1. Overview ........................................................................... 161

6.5.2.2. Excursus............................................................................. 161 6.5.3. Reactivity of Trivalent Iron..................................................163 6.5.3.1. Overview ........................................................................... 163 6.5.3.2. Excursus............................................................................. 163

6.5.4. Temperature .........................................................................164 6.5.4.1. Overview ........................................................................... 164 6.5.4.2. Excursus............................................................................. 167

6.5.5. pH Value .............................................................................. 168

6.6. Stability of Iron Blue.............................................................. 170 6.6.1. pH Sensitivity....................................................................... 170 6.6.2. Solubility..............................................................................171

6.6.2.1. Overview ........................................................................... 171 6.6.2.2. Excursus............................................................................. 172

6.6.3. Excursus: Competing Ligands .............................................175 6.6.4. Effects of Light .................................................................... 176

6.6.4.1. Overview ........................................................................... 176

6.6.4.2. Excursus............................................................................. 176 6.6.5. Long-Term Test ................................................................... 177 6.7. Influence of Various Building Materials................................ 180

6.7.1. Brick.....................................................................................180 6.7.1.1. Overview ........................................................................... 180 6.7.1.2. Excursus............................................................................. 181

6.7.2. Cement Mortar and Concrete ............................................... 181 6.7.2.1. Overview ........................................................................... 181

6.7.2.2. Excursus............................................................................. 182 6.7.3. Lime Mortar .........................................................................185 6.7.4. Effects upon the Formation of Iron Blue..............................185

7. Zyklon B for the Killing of Human Beings ............................... 191 7.1. Toxicological Effect of HCN................................................. 191 7.2. Evaporation Characteristics of Zyklon B ............................... 194 7.3. The Gassing of Human Beings............................................... 196

7.3.1. Eyewitness Testimonies ....................................................... 196 7.3.1.1. Boundary Conditions ......................................................... 196




8

7.3.1.2. Eyewitness Fantasies..........................................................199 7.3.1.3. Quantities of Poison Gas ....................................................208

7.3.1.3.1. Overview ..........................................................................208 7.3.1.3.2. Excursus 1: Poisoning or Suffocation?.............................211 7.3.1.3.3. Excursus 2: HCN Loss due to Adsorption........................216

7.3.2. Critique of the Eyewitness Descriptions...............................218 7.3.2.1. Theatre of the Absurd.........................................................218

7.3.2.1.1. Necessity of Co-Operation ...............................................218 7.3.2.1.2. Failure to Separate the Sexes............................................219 7.3.2.1.3. Towel and Soap ................................................................220

7.3.2.2. Speed of Ventilation of the ‘Gas Chambers’......................220 7.3.2.2.1. Introduction ......................................................................220

7.3.2.2.2. Excursus ...........................................................................220 7.3.2.2.3. Ventilation of the Morgues of Crematorium II & III........223 7.3.2.3. Simulation Calculations .....................................................227 7.3.2.4. Excursus: Capacity of Protective Filters ............................230

7.3.3. Evaluation of Eyewitnesses ..................................................233 7.3.4. An Expert on Cyanide Speaks Out .......................................238 7.3.5. Why Precisely Zyklon B?.....................................................241

8. Evaluation of Chemical Analyses............................................... 245

8.1. Test Sample Taking and Description ..................................... 245 8.2. Analytical Methods ................................................................ 246 8.3. Evaluation of Analytical Results............................................ 247

8.3.1. F.A. Leuchter/Alpha Analytic Laboratories .........................247 8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow...............................250 8.3.3. G. Rudolf/Fresenius Institute................................................252

8.3.3.1. Samples 1-4: Crematorium II, Morgue 1............................253

8.3.3.2. Samples 5 to 8 and 23, 24: Inmate Barracks ......................258 8.3.3.3. Samples 9 to 22: Disinfestation Building...........................258 8.3.3.4. Samples 25-30: Tests..........................................................265

8.3.4. John C. Ball ..........................................................................268 8.4. Discussion of the Analysis Results ........................................ 269

8.4.1. Blue Wall Paint?...................................................................269 8.4.2. False Method of Analysis .....................................................270 8.4.3. The Memory Hole ................................................................273

8.4.4. The Moon is Made of Pizza..................................................276 8.4.5. Anticipated Values ...............................................................279



T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

9

8.4.6. Limits of the Chemical Method............................................283

9. Conclusions .................................................................................. 287

10. Acknowledgements.................................................................... 293 11. Hunting Germar Rudolf ........................................................... 297

11.1. What Makes Revisionists? ................................................... 297 11.2. The Naiveté of a Young Revisionist .................................... 316 11.3. Flaws of a State Under the Rule of Law .............................. 330 11.4. Rudolf’s Thought ‘Crimes’ .................................................. 345 11.5. The Media and the Case of Germar Rudolf ......................... 383

11.6. Outlawed in the Federal Republic of Germany.................... 404 11.7. Biographical Notes on the Author........................................ 421

12. Bibliography .............................................................................. 423 12.1. Monographs.......................................................................... 423 12.2. Periodical Articles................................................................ 428 12.3. Archival Documents............................................................. 434 12.4. Internet Documents .............................................................. 434 12.5. Courts Files, Governmental Documents .............................. 436 12.6. Video, Audio, and Unpublished Documents........................ 437

13. Lists............................................................................................. 439 13.1. List of Tables........................................................................ 439 13.2. List of Illustrations ............................................................... 440 13.3. List of Graphs....................................................................... 444

13.4. List of Abbreviations............................................................ 445 14. Index........................................................................................... 447



11

1. Prelude

1.1. Slow Death in U.S. Gas ChambersOn June 15, 1994, dramatic events unfolded during the execution

of capital punishment. David Lawson, sentenced to death for a capitalfelony, was scheduled to be killed by hydrogen cyanide in the gaschamber located in the state prison of Raleigh, North Carolina—butthe prisoner refused to assist his executioners.1 Lawson repeatedly held

his breath for as long as possible and took only short breaths in be-tween.2 Lawson exhibited enormous willpower, calling out to bothexecutioners and witnesses throughout his execution:

1

A detailed description of this execution can be found at: Bill Krueger, “ Lawson’s Final Mo-ments”, The News & Observer , Raleigh, North Carolina, June 19, 1994, p. A1.2 Newsweek , November 8, 1993, p. 75; The New York Times, October 6, 1994, p. A20; ibid.,

Fig. 1: Schematic drawing of theUS execution gas chamber in North Carolina:

4




12

“I am human.”

At first his cry was clearly audible but as the minutes went by he became less and less understandable and finally, more than ten minutes

into the execution, there was just a mutter. He was declared dead onlyafter eighteen minutes. The witnesses to the execution were horrified.The warden of the prison who had also supervised the execution wasso shaken that he resigned. Because of this execution fiasco, execu-tions with poison gas have been abandoned for a short period of timein the USA and replaced with lethal injections.

In early March 1999, however, this horror had already been for-gotten. This time, the victim was a German national. Despite interven-

tion by the German government, Walter LaGrand was executed in thestate prison at Florence, Arizona. LaGrand’s death struggle againstlethal cyanide gas lasted eighteen minutes. Thirty witnesses peeredthrough a bulletproof window as the confessed, convicted murderer died horribly behind an armor-reinforced door.3

It is now clear to the experts, and especially to those still waitingon death row, that a quick and painless execution by gas requires thecooperation of the intended victim. Prisoners about to be gassed wereusually encouraged to inhale deeply as soon as the cyanide was re-leased in order to make their deaths come easily. However, if an in-tended victim was uncooperative, the execution could easily become afiasco. By simply refusing to take the deep breaths needed to quicklyingest a lethal dose of cyanide, the agony could last for more thaneighteen minutes, even under ideal conditions. Publications in theUnited States reveal that executions lasting from 10 to 14 minutes arethe rule, rather than the exception. Amnesty International calls them“botched executions”.4-7

June 16, 1994, p. A23.3 Bettina Freitag, “ Henker warten nicht ”, New Yorker Staats-Zeitung , March 13-19, 1999, p. 3.4 The News & Observer , Raleigh (NC), June 11, 1994, p. 14A (according to the prison warden,

normally 10-14 min.).5 C.T. Duffy, 88 Men and 2 Women, Doubleday, New York 1962, p. 101 (13-15 min.); C.T.

Duffy was warden of San Quentin Prison for almost 12 years, during which time he orderedthe execution of 88 men and 2 women, many of them executed in the local gas chamber.

6 Stephen Trombley, The Execution Protocol , Crown Publishers, New York 1992, p. 13 (approximately 10 minutes or more.); Amnesty International, Botched Executions, Fact Sheet

December 1996, distributed by Amnesty International USA, 322 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10001-4808 (more than 7 min).7 These paragraphs are based on an article by Conrad Grieb, “The Self-assisted Holocaust

Hoax” (available online only: http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvself.html); Ger.: “ Der



1. P RELUDE

13

The method used in American execution gas chambers was intro-duced in 1924, and has since been improved to technical perfection.The expense to kill just one single person is tremendously high, since

neither the witnesses, nor the prison personnel or the environment may be endangered by the poison gas released for such an execution. Re-inforced-glass windows, massive, heavy, hermetically-sealed steeldoors, powerful ventilation systems with a device to burn the evacu-ated poisonous gases, and a chemical treatment of the chamber interior to neutralize all remaining traces of the poison make this executionmethod the most a cumbersome of all.8

During the last two decades of the 20th century, the only technicalexpert in the United States able to build and maintain this equipmentwas Frederick A. Leuchter Jr., sometimes referred to in the media as“Mr. Death”,9 since his profession was the design, construction andmaintenance of various kinds of execution devices.10

A feature article in The Atlantic Monthly (Feb. 1990), for example,factually described Leuchter as

“the nation’s only commercial supplier of execution equipment. […] A trained and accomplished engineer, he is versed in all types of execu-tion equipment. He makes lethal-injection machines, gas chambers, and

gallows, as well as electrocution systems […]”

Similarly, a lengthy New York Times article (October 13, 1990),complete with a front-page photo of Leuchter, called him

“The nation’s leading adviser on capital punishment.”

In his book about “ America’s Capital Punishment Industry”, Ste-

selbstassistierte Holocaust-Schwindel ”, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung , 1(1)(1997), pp. 6ff. (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1997/1/Grieb1.html) (subsequently abbreviated asVffG).

8 Re. the technical proceedings cf.: F. A. Leuchter, The Third Leuchter Report , Samisdat Pub-lishers Ltd., Toronto 1989 (online:www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report3/leuchter3.toc.html).

9 Such is the title of a documentary movie directed by Errol Morris about Fred Leuchter, shownat the Sundance Film Festivals in Park City (Utah, USA) in late January 1999: “Mr. Death:The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.” There are actually several versions of this movie,the one offered as a VHS video for retail being massively reworked.

10 The following paragraphs were taken from Mark Weber, “ Probing Look at ‘Capital Punish-

ment Industry’ Affirms Expertise of Auschwitz Investigator Leuchter ”, The Journal of Histori-cal Review 17(2) (1998), pp. 34ff. (subsequently abbreviated as JHR); Ger.: “ Ein prüfender Blick in Amerikas ‘ Todesstrafen-Industrie’ bestätigt das Leuchter-Gutachten”, VffG, 2(3)(1998), pp. 226ff. (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Buecher3.html)




14

phen Trombley confirms that Leuchter is, in fact,11

“America’s first and foremost supplier of execution hardware. His products include electric chairs, gas chambers, gallows, and lethal injec-

tion machines. He offers design, construction, installation, staff training and maintenance.”

Killing someone in a gas chamber is very dangerous for those whocarry out the execution, above all because the body of the dead pris-oner is saturated with lethal gas. After the execution, explainsLeuchter:12

“You go in. The inmate has to be completely washed down withchlorine bleach or with ammonia. The poison exudes right out through

his skin. And if you gave the body to an undertaker, you’d kill the under-taker. You’ve got to go in, you’ve got to completely wash the body.”

Bill Armontrout, warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary in Jef-ferson City, confirms the danger:13

“One of the things that cyanide gas does, it goes in the pores of your skin. You hose the body down, see. You have to use rubber gloves,and you hose the body down to decontaminate it before you do anything [else]”

In Leuchter’s opinion, gas chamber use should be discontinued,not just because of the cruelty of this method of execution, but becauseof his beliefs relating to gas chambers as such:14

“They’re dangerous. They’re dangerous to the people who have touse them, and they’re dangerous for the witnesses. They ought to take all of them and cut them in half with a chain saw and get rid of them.”

With a career built on the motto “Capital punishment, not capital

torture”, Leuchter takes pride in his work. He is glad to be able to en-sure that condemned prisoners die painlessly, that the personnel whocarry out executions are not endangered, and that taxpayer dollars aresaved.

11

Stephen Trombley, op. cit. (note 6), p. 8.12 Ibid., p. 98.13 Ibid., p. 10214 Ibid., p. 13.



1. P RELUDE

15

1.2. Hydrogen Cyanide—a Dangerous PoisonHydrogen cyanide, is not, of course, utilized solely for the purpose

of executions in American gas chambers, but for much more construc-tive purposes as well. Since approximately the end of WWI, hydrogencyanide, or HCN, has been used to exterminate vermin such as bed- bugs, lice, corn weevils, termites, cockroaches, and other pests. It is, of

course, important to be extremely cautious while applying hydrogencyanide in order to avoid disaster, because it is in many ways a highlydangerous poison.

The residents of a house in Los Angeles, California, had to learnthis in a quite painful way shortly before Christmas 1947. They hadhired the Guarantee Fumigation Company to destroy the termiteswhich threatened to eat up the wooden structure. The pest controllers,however, were apparently not very competent, because when using a

container of pressurized HCN to fill the house, which had beenwrapped up like a Christmas present, they exceeded safe limits and

Fig. 2: How to get rid of termites: Larger photo: Before. Smaller photo: After.




16

pumped in too much gas. (Fig. 2).15 Due to unknown reasons, the mix-ture of air and HCN, which can be highly explosive under certain cir-cumstances, ignited during the fumigation. The resulting explosion

destroyed the entire dwelling.16

However, hydrogen cyanide has yet another insidious characteris-tic: it is highly mobile. This mobility is highly welcome when it comesto killing vermin: Wherever fleas and bugs try to hide, the gas will stillreach them! Unfortunately, hydrogen cyanide does not restrict itself toattack vermin. Rather, it indiscriminately seeps into the smallest cracksand even penetrates porous substances such as felt sealing materialsand thin walls, thereby leaking into areas where it is not welcome. Thefailure on the part of disinfestors to ensure that all places to be fumi-gated are adequately sealed off have been described in toxicologicalliterature:17

“Example: J.M., a 21 year old female home decorator, was work-ing in the cellar of the house, the second floor of which was being treated

for vermin with cyanide gas. Due to insufficient sealing during fumiga-tion, the gas penetrated the corridors, where it poisoned the disinfestor,and reached the cellar through air shafts. Mrs. M. suddenly experienced an intense itching sensation in her throat followed by headache and diz-

ziness. Her two fellow workers noticed the same symptoms and they all left the cellar. After half an hour, Mrs. M. returned to the cellar where-upon she suddenly collapsed and fell unconscious. Mrs. M. was taken toa hospital together with the unconscious exterminator. Mrs. M. recov-ered and was released. The exterminator, by contrast, was pronounced dead on arrival.”

But the dangers of this type of poison gas are not merely restrictedto persons in the same house in which fumigation is taking place.

Large quantities of gas may penetrate the open air and endanger theentire neighborhood, as shown by an accident in the fall of 1995 in aCroatian holiday resort:18

15 A gassing requires 1-2% by volume, while an explosion requires 6% by volume or more; see,in this regard, chapter 6.3.

16 “ How to get rid of termites”, Life, Dec. 22, 1947, p. 31; see also Liberty Bell , 12/1994, pp. 36f.17 S. Moeschlin, Klinik und Therapie der Vergiftung , Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart 1986, p.

300.18 dpa, “ Dilettantische Kammerjäger ”, Kreiszeitung, Böblinger Bote, Nov. 16, 1995, p. 7. Re-

search has failed to determine which toxic gas was involved. Since hydrogen cyanide is one of the most poisonous and most rapidly diffusing of all gases used in disinfestation, the reporteddamage would have been at least as great if caused by hydrogen cyanide, even if hydrogencyanide was not in fact involved in this accident. A number of additional examples are de-



1. P RELUDE

17

“That failed profoundly. Three local residents suffering from symp-toms of poisoning and a number of surviving woodworms were the re-

sults of the botched action against vermin in a church in the Croatianholiday resort Lovran, close to Rijeka. The exterminator’s clumsy work necessitated the evacuation of several hundred residents of the locality.

The exterminators tried to treat the Church of the Holy Juraj for woodworm during the night, using the highly toxic gas. But since they

failed to seal off the church appropriately, the gas seeped into surround-ing houses in which people were already asleep. ‘Fortunately, the peoplewoke up immediately because of sudden attacks of nausea—that’s what

saved them from certain death,’ wrote the newspaper, ‘Vecernji List’.Three residents nevertheless suffered severe intoxication. The mayor de-

cided to evacuate the center of the town. The exterminators were ar-rested. The woodworms survived. dpa”

But that is still not all: on top of this, hydrogen cyanide is also atenacious poison. It adheres wherever it is utilized, especially in amoist environment. Deadly cyanide gas continues to evaporate slowlyfrom moist objects for hours and days, involving a permanent envi-ronmental hazard where sufficient ventilation cannot be assured. Thisis emphasized by an especially dramatic and simultaneously macabre

accident in the United States in the fall of 1998:

Oct. 10, 1998

Suicide fumes sicken

nine Iowa studentsGRINNELL, Iowa (CPX) A student at Grinnell College

committed suicide by swallowing so much potassium cyanide

that the fumes from his body sickened nine people.

Two college staff members, three students and four para-

medics were weakened and nauseated by the fumes after en-

counterin the student’s bod Monda . The were treated and

scribed by K. Naumann: “ Die Blausäurevergiftung bei der Schädlingsbekämpfung ”, Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung , 1941, pp. 36-45.




18

released from a local hospital.

Carl T. Grimm, 20, a sophomore from Placentia, Calif.,

swallowed a crystalline form of potassium cyanide, which pre-

vents oxygen from entering cells. He immediately asked hisroommate to call for help but not before the chemical reacted

with water in his body and began to produce cyanide gas, a

spokesman for the college said.

Grimm’s residence hall at the private liberal arts college

located about 50 miles east of Des Moines was evacuated be-

cause of the fumes. Grinnell Regional Medical Center, where

Grimm’s body was taken, also had to be aired out.

College officials are still trying to determine how Grimmgot the potassium cyanide and why he wanted to kill himself. [19]

Another case, which occurred somewhat differently, neverthelessled to an accident which was no less tragic. Salts of cyanide, whichrelease cyanide gas in the presence of moisture, are used for theseparation of gold and silver during the processing of precious metals.In the case in question, a company was engaged in the processing of the cyanide-rich residues of such chemical reactions contained in large

tanks, which is not without risk. The employer directed the workers,who were not equipped with gas masks or protective clothing, to gointo the tanks which were still releasing cyanide gas. The conse-quences were tragic.

Department of Justice National News ReleaseMONDAY, MAY 10, 1999

On May 7, the jury in Pocatello, ID, found that Allan Elias

ordered employees of Evergreen Resources, a fertilizer manu-

facturing company he owned, to enter and clean out a 25,000-

gallon storage tank containing cyanide without taking required

precautions to protect his employees. Occupational Safety and

Health Administration inspectors repeatedly had warned Elias

19 www.mankato.msus.edu/depts/reporter/reparchive/10_15_98/campuscope.html



1. P RELUDE

19

about the dangers of cyanide and explained the precautions he

must take before sending his employees into the tank, such as

testing for hazardous materials and giving workers protective

gear.Scott Dominguez, an Evergreen Resources employee, was

overcome by hydrogen cyanide gas while cleaning the tank and

sustained permanent brain damage as a result of cyanide poi-

soning.[…]

Over a period of two days in August 1996, Elias directed

his employees—wearing only jeans and T-shirts—to enter an

11-foot-high, 36-foot-long storage tank and clean out cyanide

waste from a mining operation he owned. Elias did not first testthe material inside the tank for its toxicity, nor did he deter-

mine the amount of toxic gases present. After the first day of

working inside the tank, several employees met with Elias and

told him that working in the tank was giving them sore throats,

which is an early symptom of exposure to hydrogen cyanide

gas.

The employees asked Elias to test the air in the tank for

toxic gases and bring them protective gear—which is required

by OSHA and which was available to the defendant free of

charge in this case. Elias did not provide the protective gear,

and he ordered the employees to go back into the tank, falsely

assuring them that he would get them the equipment they

sought. Later that morning, Dominguez collapsed inside the

tank. And he could not be rescued for nearly an hour because

Elias also had not given employees the required rescue equip-

ment.[20]

Even this example fails to convey the full scope of the insidiousnature of cyanide gas, since it does not just kill by means of inhalation;even a gas mask may prove insufficient, especially if a person is sweat-ing heavily. Hydrogen cyanide is dissolved most readily on moist sur-

20 www.osha.gov/media/oshnews/may99/national-19990510.html; see also The Plain Dealer ,

Dec. 19, 1999, p. 30A; Nation—The Orange County Register , Jan. 9, 2000, News 11; Allan

Elias was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment on April 28, 2000, APBnews.com, April 29,2000, www.apbnews.com/safetycenter/business/2000/04/29/safetycrime0429_01.html and…/safetycrime0429_doc.html: The cyanide-contaminated sludge in the tank also contained

phosphoric acid, resulting in the release of cyanide gas.




20

faces, and it easily penetrates the skin. This was proven by a dramaticaccident in 1995 in a cave in the French city of Montérolier:21

“The death of nine persons on June 21, 1995, in the cave of

Montérolier (Seine-Maritime) was said to have been caused by the re-lease of cyanide gas originating from the poison gas used during First World War, the so-called Vincennite. This was announced Wednesday by

former Professor of Physical Chemistry, Louis Soulié. […] At a pressconference in Buchy, he said that ‘neither the children nor the firemenrushing to the rescue—one of whom wore a gas mask—died of carbonmonoxide poisoning.’

[…] ‘Even six days after their deaths, a cyanide concentration twiceas high as the fatal dose was still observed in the victims’ blood.’

According to the professor’s remarks, the three children lit a fire inthe cave and threw a Vincennite bomb found in the cave into the fire. Thebomb exploded. The gas caused the deaths of three children, four fire-men, the father of one of the children and an amateur spelunker.

According to Prof. Soulié, the deaths of the firemen looking for thechildren in the cave, including the fireman wearing a gas mask, were dueto the fact that hydrogen cyanide dissolves in the sweat and penetratesthe body through the skin, where it causes poisoning.”

1.3. The Acid that Causes Blue StainsGreat excitement was

caused by a strange occur-rence in a Protestant church atWiesenfeld, Lower Bavaria,Germany, in the spring andsummer of 1977. The congre-gation had renovated the dete-riorating church at great expense during the previousyear, but now they faced adisaster. Huge blue stainswere found to have formed inall parts of the plastered inte-

21 “Un expert évoque la présence de gaz mortel dans la grotte”, Le Quotidien de la Réunion,

June 25, 1998.

Fig. 3: Inky blue stains on the plaster of a church fumigated with hydrogen

cyanide.



1. P RELUDE

21

rior of the church. The expertshaving renovated the churchwere now called in for consul-

tation, and found themselvesconfronted by a riddle whichwas only solved by a chemicalanalysis of the stained por-tions of the walls. The entireinterior surface of the churchwas impregnated by IronBlue. No explanation could befound for this in the literature.It nevertheless proved possible to reconstruct the se-quence of events.

A few weeks after the re- plastering of the church with awater-resistant cement mortar,the entire church had beenfumigated with Zyklon B (hy-

drogen cyanide) to extermi-nate woodworm in the choir stalls. The hydrogen cyanide,released by the Zyklon B, didnot just kill woodworm: italso reacted chemically with the plaster. The hydrogen cyanide con-tained in the Zyklon reacted with the iron oxides contained in quanti-ties of 1-2% in all plasters, thus forming Iron Blue, a highly stable

compound well-know for centuries.22

Reports of blue pigmentation of walls resulting from fumigation

with hydrogen cyanide for the destruction of vermin in areas with

22 G. Zimmermann (ed.), Bauschäden Sammlung , volume 4, Forum-Verlag, Stuttgart 1981, pp.120f., relating to the case of building damage occurring in August 1976 in the Protestantchurch at D-96484 Meeder-Wiesenfeld. We wish to thank Mr. W. Lüftl, Vienna, for discover-ing this information, as well as Mr. K. Fischer, Hochstadt am Main, who was held liable for damages as responsible architect, and who supplied me with further details. Reproduced from:

E. Gauss (alias Germar Rudolf), “Wood Preservation through Fumigation with HydrogenCyanide: Blue Discoloration of Lime- and Cement-Based Interior Plaster”, in: E. Gauss (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust , Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2000, pp. 555-559(online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwood.html).

Fig. 4: In August 1976, the Protestant church at D-96484 Meeder-Wiesenfeld

was fumigated with Zyklon B.Subsequently, blue-colored stains

appeared all over the plaster (see Fig. 3).




22

moist, ferrous plaster are well-known in technical literature, as shown by a recent survey.23 The necessary prerequisite for this reaction appears to be that the fumigated plaster must be new and must exhibit

high humidity. In other cases, there was also damage to the structureand interior installations, but no blue stains, perhaps because the plas-ter was old and had already set.24

23 E. Emmerling, in: M. Petzet (ed.), Holzschädlingsbekämpfung durch Begasung , Arbeitsheftedes Bayerischen Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege (Working Notebooks of the Bavarian StateOffice for Monument Maintenance), vol. 75, Lipp-Verlag, Munich 1995, pp. 43-56. Whether the examples cited in the paper may perhaps refer to the above mentioned case only in aroundabout way, must remain open for the time being. Carl Hermann Christmann reports thecase of a farm building belonging to an 18th century monastery; the farm building was sold toa farmer following secularization, and the farmer then used it as a barn. Approximately 20years ago, an investor converted the beautiful Baroque building into a luxury holiday restau-rant. The existing interior plaster was repaired and painted white. After some time, blue stainsappeared in the white paint; the stains were identified by a consulting expert as Iron Blue. Theexpert assumed that the former owner must have fumigated the building with hydrogen cya-nide between 1920 and 1940, which then caused the stains 40-50 years later. Personal com-munication from C.H. Christmann according to his recollection on July 13, 1999; Mr. Christ-

mann was unfortunately unable to find the source of the information. I would be extremelygrateful for any references to passages in the literature in relation to this case.

24 In one case, the fumigation of a church freshly painted with iron-free lime paint led to dark stains caused by the polymerization of hydrogen cyanide: D. Grosser, E. Roßmann,“ Blausäuregas als bekämpfendes Holzschutzmittel für Kunstobjekte”, Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff , 32 (1974), pp. 108-114.



23

2. The Coup

2.1. Fred Leuchter on Auschwitz and Majdanek On February 3, 1988, Fred Leuchter received an unexpected visi-

tor at his home in Boston, Massachusetts. A professor of French,Greek, Latin, as well as critic of testimonies, texts and documents fromthe University of Lyon II—Dr. Robert Faurisson—had an unusual as-signment in mind: He wanted to persuade Leuchter, in his capacity as

an expert in execution technology, to prepare a professional opinion to be used in a criminal trial then taking place in Toronto, Canada.25 More precisely, Dr. Faurisson wanted to convince Leuchter to determinewhether or not the generally alleged mass exterminations with hydro-gen cyanide gas in the concentration camps of the Third Reich weretechnically possible. Until that time, Leuchter had never questioned theexistence of German homicidal gas chambers. When Prof. Faurissonshowed him some mostly technical documents, however, Leuchter be-

gan to have doubts about the technical feasibility of the alleged homi-cidal gassings and agreed to come to Toronto to view additional docu-mentation.

After this meeting and on the assignment of defense counsel, hethen traveled to Poland with his wife who was also his secretary, hisdraftsman, a video cameraman and a translator, to make a technicalexamination of the concentration camps at Auschwitz, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek for the above trial. He returned to the UnitedStates and wrote a 192-page report (incl. appendices). He also brought32 test samples taken from the masonry in the crematoria at Auschwitzand Birkenau, the locations where the alleged gassings are said to havetaken place, as well as from a delousing gas chamber. The backgroundof these samples is as follows:

25 Re. background and course of the criminal proceedings cf.: R. Lenski, The Holocaust on Trial ,Reporter Press, Decatur, Alabama 1990, abridged transcript of the trial against Ernst Zündel inToronto 1988; Ger.: Der Holocaust vor Gericht , Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1996

(online: www.zundelsite.org/german/lenski/lenskitoc.html); a lengthy compilation of the en-tire trial: Barbara Kulaszka (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die? Report on the Evidence in theCanadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel—1988, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto1992 (online: www.zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrdtoc.html).




24

Almost all the concentration camps of the Third Reich containedfacilities for the disinfestation of lice carried by inmate clothing. Vari-ous methods were used to accomplish this objective: hot air, hot steam,

several different poison gases, and towards the end of the war evenmicrowaves. Delousing was urgently needed in particular because licecarry epidemic typhus, a disease with a history of repeated outbreaks ineastern and central Europe. Epidemic typhus appeared again duringWWII where it claimed hundreds of thousands of victims, not only inthe concentration camps and prisoner-of-war camps, but among sol-diers at the front. Since WWI, the most effective and the most widelyused means for the extermination of lice and other pests, was hydrogencyanide, marketed under the trade-name Zyklon B.

Fig. 5: Single door to an executiongas chamber for one single person per gassing procedure (Baltimore,

USA, 1954, technology from the1930s). The execution of a single person with hydrogen cyanide is

inevitably far more complicated and dangerous to the environment thanthe fumigation of clothing (even in a

DEGESCH circulation chamber).

Fig. 6: One of three doors from analleged National Socialist gaschamber for the execution of

hundreds of persons simultaneously,using Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide)(crematorium I, Auschwitz, Poland,early 1940s). This door is neither of

sturdy construction, nor is it air-tight (note the keyhole). It is partly glazed

and opens inwards i.e., into the room,where corpses were allegedly piling

up.



2. T HE C OUP

25

It has been known for decades that the walls within the buildingsin which Zyklon B is proved to have been used to delouse inmateclothing exhibit massive, blotchy, bluish discoloration. This blue dis-

coloration is due to a chemical substance known as Iron Blue which,under the right conditions, is formed in a chemical reaction by hydro-gen cyanide with certain components of masonry. This substance canstill be observed in surviving delousing facilities today. It is obviouslya very stable compound. Professor Faurisson was the first person to point out that this blue discoloration is absent from the supposed homi-cidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Faurisson’s idea was to analyzesamples from the masonry in the alleged homicidal gas chambers for traces of poison gas or its compounds (cyanides) and compare themwith samples taken from the delousing chambers. Fred Leuchter fol-lowed this suggestion when doing his on-site investigations in Ausch-witz in 1988.

On April 20 and 21, 1988, Leuchter took the stand as an expertwitness in the courtroom in Toronto. He reported about his researchand developed his conclu-sions. The atmosphere in thecourtroom was tense. Leu-

chter’s testimony was straight-forward and at the same timesensational: According toLeuchter, there had never been any possibility of massextermination of human be-ings by gassing in Auschwitz,nor in Birkenau, nor in Ma-

jdanek:26

“It is the best engineer-

ing opinion of this author that the alleged gas cham-bers at the inspected sitescould not have then been, or now, be utilized or seriouslyconsidered to function as

26 F. A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland , Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988, 195 pp.; Ger.: Der erste Leuchter Report , ibid., 1988 (online: ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html).

Fig. 7: Frederick A. Leuchter, theworld’s first, and possibly only, cyanide

gas chamber expert, during a talk at the conference of the Institute for

Historical Review in 1992




26

execution gas chambers.”

Shortly before Leuchter, another witness was questioned: Bill Ar-montrout, Warden of the Maximum Security Prison in Jefferson City,

Missouri. It was Armontrout who, on request of defense attorneyBarbara Kulaszka, pointed out that no one in the United States under-stood the operation of gas chambers better than Fred A. Leuchter.Armontrout himself confirmed in Court the great difficulties involvedin killing people with poison gas, as Robert Faurisson had done beforehim.

Following Leuchter, Prof. James Roth, director of a chemicallaboratory in Massachusetts, also took the witness stand to describe the

results of his analysis of the 32 masonry samples, the origins of whichhad been unknown to him: All samples taken from the gas chamberssupposedly used for mass human extermination exhibited either no or only negligible traces of cyanide, while the sample from the delousingchambers taken for use as control purposes exhibited enormously highcyanide concentrations.27

Leuchter’s report and subsequent testimony shook the foundationsof Holocaust history, the story of the ‘Nazi gas chambers’. Consideringthe tens of thousands of copies of this “ Leuchter Report ” that have been distributed in all major languages all over the world and the manyspeeches Leuchter held, the impact of the work of this one man wasenormous.

2.2. Damage ControlAlarmed by this development, the ‘Never Forgive, Never Forget’

brigade wasted no time in taking counter-measures. Self-styled ‘Nazihunter’ Beate Klarsfeld announced that Fred Leuchter “has to under-

stand that in denying the Holocaust, he cannot remain unpunished.”28 Jewish organizations launched a vicious smear campaign to de-

stroy not only his reputation, but his ability to make a living. Leadingthe charge was Shelly Shapiro and her group, “ Holocaust Survivors

27 Partially derived from Prof. Faurisson’s description in: “ Zum Zündel-Prozeß in Toronto, Teil 2. Vorgeschichte—Ablauf—Folgen”, Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 36(4) (1988),

pp. 4-10 (online: http://www.vho.org/D/DGG/Faurisson36_4.html) (hereafter abbreviated as DGG).28 This paragraph is again quoted acc. to Mark Weber, who gives no reference for this alleged

quote of Beate Klarsfeld in his article op. cit. (note 10),.



2. T HE C OUP

27

and Friends in Pursuit of Justice”. Calling Leuchter a fraud and impos-tor, this group claimed, despite better knowledge, that he lacked quali-fications as an execution equipment specialist and had asserted the

possession of professional qualifications which he had never earned.29

Although these accusations were entirely unfounded and failed tosurvive any legal verification, the ‘get Leuchter’ campaign, with theco-operation of mainstream journalists and editors, was successful.Leuchter’s contracts with state authorities for the manufacture, installa-tion, and servicing of execution hardware were cancelled. He was fi-nancially forced out of his home in Massachusetts and had to find pri-vate work elsewhere. No American has suffered more for his defianceof the Holocaust lobby.

29 Cf. JHR, 12(4) (1992), pp. 421-492 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/index.html#4).



29

3. The Origins

Before the publication of the Leuchter Report , discussion relatingto the reliability of eyewitness testimony of National Socialist massmurder was confined to groups describing themselves as ‘revisionists’,usually termed ‘Neo-Nazis’ or ‘right-wing extremists’ by the media.But in fact, the labels used by the media were wide off the mark, as can be seen in the case of four of the most well-known revisionists: PaulRassinier, French Socialist and former member of the French Resis-tance, who was an inmate of the concentration camps Buchenwald and

Dora-Mittelbau;30

German Jew, Josef Ginsburg, who suffered fromanti-Jewish measures taken dur-ing WWII by other countries aswell as Germany.31 The two mostnotable revisionists, ProfessorsArthur R. Butz, USA,32 and re-tired Prof. Robert Faurisson, of France, can certainly not be ac-cused of being political extrem-ists, and nobody ever seriouslytried to do this.33

The discussion on the tech-nical problems of the NationalSocialist mass-murder of theJews was begun in the late 1970s

30 Cf. his four most-important works: Die Lüge des Odysseus, K.-H. Priester, Wiesbaden 1959;

Was nun, Odysseus?, ibid. 1960; Das Drama der Juden Europas, H. Pfeiffer, Hannover 1965;Was ist Wahrheit?, Druffel, Leoni 81982; Engl.: Debunking the Genocide Myth, The NoontidePress, Los Angeles, 1978 (online: abbc.com/aaargh/engl/PRdebunk1.html).

31 Cf. his most import works: Schuld und Schicksal , Damm-Verlag, Munich 1962 (online:www.vho.org/D/sus); Sündenböcke, Verlag G. Fischer, Munich 1967; NS-Verbrechen—

Prozesse des schlechten Gewissens, ibid. 1968; Verschwörung des Verschweigens, Ederer,Munich 1979; Majdanek in alle Ewigkeit?, ibid. 1979 (online: www.vho.org/D/miae); Zi-onazi-Zensur in der BRD, ibid. 1980.

32 Cf. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, Cali-fornia, 71985 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc); “Context and perspective in the ‘Holo-caust’ controversy”, JHR, 3(4) (1982), pp. 371-405. (online:

www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/3/4/Butz371-405.html).33 Cf. Mémoire en défense, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1980; Serge Thion (ed.), Vérité historique ouvérité politique?; La Vielle Taupe, Paris 1980 (online: abbc.com/aaargh/fran/histo/SF1.html);R. Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, 4 vols., published by author, Vichy 1999.

Fig. 8: Prof. Dr. Robert Faurisson




30

by Robert Faurisson, then Professor of French, Greek and Latin, and ananalyst of documents, texts, and witness statements at the University of Lyon II. He began to question the standard historical version of the

Holocaust after he had made numerous critical studies concerning wit-ness testimony and on documents that supposedly supported the claimsof mass-murder. In 1978 for the first time, he advanced the argumentthat “there had not been one single gas chamber under Adolf Hitler ”.34 Later he supported this claim with physical, chemical, topographic,architectural, documentary, and historical arguments. He described theexistence of the homicidal gas chambers as “radically impossible”.35 At the end of 1979, the largest French daily newspaper, Le Monde, de-cided to publish Professor Faurisson’s provocative thesis, so he wasgiven the opportunity to summarize it in an article.36 The establishmenthistorians reaction was characteristic37 and is best illustrated by a pas-sage from a declaration signed by Pierre Vidal Naquet and 33 other researchers:38

“One may not ask how such a mass-murder [of Jews] was possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This is the obligatory starting-point of every historical investigation of this subject. We simplywant to call into memory this truth: There is no debate over the existence

of the gas chambers, and there must not be one.”

Such a dogmatic explanation is equivalent to a capitulation, whichwas well understood. Hence, they reconsidered their standpoint andwent back to the drawing board.

Over the years that followed, establishment historians took up thequestions raised by Robert Faurisson and others, at least to some ex-

34 Cf. in addition to arguments in the works in note 33 also R. Faurisson, “Es gab keine Gas-

kammern”, Deutscher Arbeitskreis Witten, Witten 1978.35 R. Faurisson, “ Le camere a gas non sono mai esistite”, Storia illustrata, 261 (1979), pp. 15-35(online: abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archFaur/RF7908xx2.html); Engl.: “The Gas Chambers: Truthor Lie?” The Journal of Historical Review, 2(4) (1981), pp. 319-373 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/4/Faurisson319-373.html); cf. Faurisson, “The Mechanicsof Gassing ”, JHR, 1(1) (1980) pp. 23ff. (online:abbc.com/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF80spring.html); Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers of

Auschwitz Appear to be Physically Inconceivable”, ibid., 2(4) (1981), pp. 311ff. (online:www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/4/Faurisson312-317.html)

36 “‘Le problème des chambres à gaz’ ou ‘la rumeur d’Auschwitz’”, Le Monde, Dec. 29, 1978, p. 8; see also “The ‘problem of the gas chambers’ ”, JHR, 1(2) (1980), pp. 103-114 (online:

ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p103_Faurisson.html).37 Cf. the documentation on numerous articles and letters in R. Faurisson, Mémoire…, op. cit.(note 33), pp. 71-101.

38 Le Monde, Feb 21, 1979.



3. T HE O RIGINS

31

tent, although they doggedly refused to permit him, or any one elsewho even remotely voiced similar thoughts, to participate in any aca-demic activities. In the early 1980s, two large Holocaust conferences

were held in the cities of Paris39

and Stuttgart.40

One of the more important reasons for these conferences certainly were the works of Fau-risson, Butz, and others.41

In 1983, as a counter-measure against the ongoing successes of re-visionists, a compilation was published, principally the work of Frenchand German establishment historians.42 While this book ridiculed andinsulted revisionists and cast political aspersions against them, and atthe same time was intended to refute their claims, it does neither ad-dress any particular revisionist argument, nor are any revisionist publi-cations quoted or authors named, so that it is impossible to the reader of this book to verify the polemic accusations made against the revi-sionists. This book also repeats the mistake often emphasized by revi-sionists: quotations from ‘eye-witness’ testimony and passages fromdocuments were taken out of context and pasted uncritically into a pre-determined historical schema.

The publication of the Leuchter Report at the end of the 1980sgave a significant boost to revisionism. From that time onward, there

has been an unending stream of publications.43 The number of persons

39 At the Sorbonne from Jun 29.—July 2., 1982, entitled “ Le national-socialisme et les Juifs”; cf.Ecole des hautes études en sciences socials (ed.), L’Allemagne nazie et le génocide juif, Gal-limard/Le Seuil, Paris 1985; on December 11-13, 1987, there was a second Colloquium heldat the Sorbonne, cf. R. Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, op. cit. (note 33), vol. 2, pp. 733-750(online: abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archFaur/RF871210.html).

40 For a transcript of the conference, cf.: Jäckel, E., J. Rohwer, Der Mord an den Juden im Zweiten Weltkrieg , Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1985.

41 Most importantly, Wilhelm Stäglich’s Der Auschwitz-Mythos, published in 1979, (Grabert,

Tübingen, online: www.vho.org/D/dam; Engl.: The Auschwitz Myth, Institute for HistoricalReview, Torrance, CA, 1986) as well as Walter N. Sanning’s papers and book on Jewish

population statistics: “ Die europäischen Juden. Eine technische Studie zur zahlenmäßigen Entwicklung im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Teil 1-4”, DGG 28(1-4) (1980), pp. 12-15; 17-21; 17-21;25-31; Sanning, Die Auflösung des osteuropäischen Judentums, Grabert, Tübingen 1983(online: www.vho.org/D/DGG/Sanning28_1.html and www.vho.org/D/da); English: The Dis-

solution of Eastern European Jewry, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, CA, 1983.42 E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl et al. (eds.), Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch

Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt 1983; Engl.: Nazi Mass Murder , Yale University Press, New Haven 1993; French: Henry Rollet, Les chambres à gaz secret d’Etat , Les Editions deMinuit, Paris 1984.

43

The most important: J. Ball, Air Photo Evidence, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor, Bergen Belsen, Belzec, Babi Yar, Katyn Forest , Ball Resource Service Ltd., Delta, B.C., Can-ada 1992 (permanently updated and enhanced online: www.air-photo.com); Ernst Gauss (aliasG. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993 (online:




32

involved in ‘revisionism’ increases steadily; although in France and inGerman-speaking countries, this development has been curtailed by theenactment of laws threatening heavy penalties.44

3.1. On the ProblemA fact-oriented discussion of the technical arguments brought into

the public by the Leuchter Report was started in France by an attempt

www.vho.org/D/vuez); Gauss. (ed.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, ibid. 1994 (online: co-doh.com/inter/intgrundex.html); Engl.: Dissecting the Holocaust , note 22; Jürgen Graf, Der

Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand , Guideon Burg, Basel 1992 (online:www.zundelsite.org/german/graf/Prueftoc.html); Graf, Der Holocaust-Schwindel , ibid. 1993;Graf, Auschwitz. Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust , Verlag Neue Visionen,Würenlos 1994 (online: www.vho.org/D/atuadh); Graf, Todesursache Zeitgeschichtsfor-

schung , ibid. 1995 (online: www.zundelsite.org/ezundel/german/graf/Graf_TOC.html); Graf and Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek , Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 1998 (online:www.vho.org/D/Majdanek/MR.html); Graf, Mattogno, Das KL Stutthof , Castle Hill Publish-ers, Hastings 1999 (online: www.vho.org/D/Stutthof); Jürgen Graf, Riese auf tönernen Füßen,ibid. 1999 (online: www.vho.org/D/Riese); Engl: The Giant With Feet of Clay, Theses & Dis-sertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/Giant); Gerd Honsik,

Freispruch für Hitler , Burgenländischer Kulturverband, Vienna 1988 (online:www.vho.org/D/ffh); Honsik, Schelm und Scheusal , Bright Rainbow, Madrid n.d. [1994];Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (ed.), Das Rudolf-Gutachten, Cromwell, London 1993 (on-line: www.vho.org/D/rga); Carlo Mattogno, La soluzione finale. Problemi e polemiche,Edizioni di Ar, Padua 1991; Auschwitz. La prima gasazione, Edizioni di Ar, Padua 1992; Mat-togno, Auschwitz: The End of a Legend , Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa 1994(online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html); Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz:

Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1995 (online: www.vho.org/D/anf). Be-fore the Leuchter Report, there were really only three revisionist periodicals ( JHR, Annalesd’Histoire Révisionniste, Historische Tatsache, online cf.www.vho.org/Archive.html#Journals), there are now eight—apart from various informationservices and newsletters: JHR (PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA; online:ihr.org/jhr), VffG (PO Box 118, Hastings TN34 3ZQ, UK; online: www.vho.org/VffG), The

Barnes Review (130 Third Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003, USA; online:www.barnesreview.org), Révision (11 rue d’Alembert, F-92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux), L’Autre

Histoire (BP 3, F-35134 Coësme), Revisionist History (PO Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho83816, USA; online: hoffman-info.com), Akribea (45/3 route de Vourles, F-69230 Saint-Genis-Laval; online: www.vho.org/F/j/Akribeia), Le Révisionniste (VHO, BP 46, B-2600Berchem 1, Belgium); The Revisionist (PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, online:www.vho.org/tr).

44 The Fabius-Gayssot Law was passed in France in 1990, rendering punishable the ‘denial of the facts’ of the National Socialist war crimes ‘ascertained’ at the Nuremburg Trials of 1946convened by the Allied powers. In 1993, Austria followed suit (sec. 3h Criminal Law); in1994, Germany (sec. 130 Criminal Code, new version), in 1995, Switzerland (sec. 216 bis

Criminal Code) and in 1996, Spain enacted similar laws. A similar law passed in Belgium in1997 has not yet been enforced. Poland adopted a similar law in 2000, Hungary is currently preparing to introduce one. Canada and Australia have created ‘Human Rights Commissions’which persecute revisionists although there is no legal framework for this.



3. T HE O RIGINS

33

at refutation by the pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac in the periodical Jour Juif .45 His work could hardly qualify as an expert discussion inview of the absence of any references to his sources and any exact sci-

entific argumentation. Though he did point out several deficiencies inthe Leuchter Report , he made several errors himself in chemical andengineering questions due to his lack of expertise.46

The first response from Germany came from the Institut für Zeit- geschichte (IfZ, Institute for Contemporary History).47 It was based onPressac’s work and was hardly useful due to the lack of technical expertise in the same.48

A little later, a contribution on the Leuchter Report appeared in ananthology on the Third Reich, authored by retired social worker Werner Wegner, who had no qualifications in chemistry or civil engi-neering either.49 Instead of seeking the advice of qualified people onthese matters, he drew his own conclusions—to his own massive em- barrassment.50 One may question why Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, the re-sponsible editor of this anthology, included this ridiculous piece in hisotherwise well-researched compilation.51

At the end of 1991, chemist Dr. J. Bailer critiqued the Leuchter Report in a little booklet published in Austria.52 This work is notable

45 J.-C. Pressac, Jour J , December 12, 1988, pp. I-X. See also the related discussion in the un-dated translation, without references; see also Pressac in: S. Shapiro (Ed.), Truth Prevails:

Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report , Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1990.

46 On this cf. W. Schuster, “Technische Unmöglichkeiten bei Pressac”, DGG, 39(2) (1991), pp.9-13 (online: vho.org./D/DGG/Schuster39_2); also Paul Grubach, “The Leuchter Report Vin-dicated: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac’s Critique”, JHR, 12(2) (1992), pp. 248ff. (on-line: codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html)

47 H. Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter to Bundesprüfstelle, Munich, Oct. 10, 1989;

Auerbach, November 1989 (no day given), both published in U. Walendy, Historische Tatsa-che no. 42, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1990, pp. 32 and 34.

48 In this regard, see my technical appraisal, reprinted in Henri Roques, Günter Annthon, Der Fall Günter Deckert , DAGD/Germania Verlag, Weinheim 1995, pp. 431-435 (online:www.vho.org/D/Deckert/C2.html).

49 W. Wegner, “ Keine Massenvergasungen in Auschwitz? Zur Kritik des Leuchter-Gutachtens”,in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann (ed.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit , Propyläen, Frank-furt 1990, pp. 450-476 (online: www.vho.org/D/dsdv/Wegner.html, with interpolated critique

by the present writer).50 On this cf. W. Häberle, “ Zu Wegners Kritik am Leuchter-Gutachten”, DGG, 39(2) (1991), pp.

13-17 (online: www.vho.org/D/DGG/Haeberle39_2.html).51

In a personal communication to me, he confessed that he had been forced to include the paper to avoid opposition to his book due to the fact that the other papers were ‘revisionist’ in tone.52 J. Bailer, “ Der Leuchter-Bericht aus der Sicht eines Chemikers”, in: Amoklauf gegen die

Wirklichkeit , Dokumentationszentrum des österreichischen Widerstandes, Bundesministerium




34

for largely ignoring the witness testimony on the procedures suppos-edly used during the gassings at Auschwitz and for the author’s lack of understanding of the process by which hydrogen cyanide reacts with

masonry. Despite criticism directed at his study,53

Bailer repeated hisunsustainable objections in a later publication, without responding tohis critics.54

At approximately the same time as Bailer’s first publication, G.Wellers also published a study of the Leuchter Report . Wellers’ posi-tion was superficial, and is characterized by lack of technical and sci-entific knowledge.55

Finally, the Auschwitz State Museum itself ordered an expert report to be compiled. The Institute for Forensic Research, ToxicologyDivision, of Cracow, Poland, named after Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn, preparedthis report under Prof. Dr. J. Markiewicz on September 24, 1990,which confined itself to the analysis of masonry samples.56 The reportconcluded that the reason why Leuchter’s samples from the homicidalgas chambers were mostly negative with respect to traces of cyanidewas because the cyanide compounds had been exposed for more than40 years to weathering, which these compounds allegedly could nothave withstood. Three of these authors from the Jan Sehn Institute later

published additional findings,57 which were, however, based on a veri-fiably incorrect analytical method—as was the first series of analy-

für Unterricht und Kultur (eds.), Vienna 1991, pp. 47-52. With respect to the cyanide contentof human hair: Expert Opinion of the Cracow Institute, 1945, on the cyanide content of humanhair, hair pins and a ventilation lid, B. Bailer-Galanda, ibid., pp. 36-40; the original is in thecustody of the Auschwitz State Museum.

53 Cf. E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen…, op. cit. (note 43), pp. 290-293; Gauss,“Chemische Wissenschaft zur Gaskammerfrage”, DGG, 41(2) (1993), pp. 16-24 (online:

vho.org./D/DGG/Gauss41_2).54 J. Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer (ed.), Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge,Deuticke, Vienna 1995, pp. 112-118; cf. my critique “ Zur Kritik an ‘Wahrheit und Ausch-witzlüge’ ”, in Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, Vrij Historisch On-derzoek, Berchem, 1996, pp. 91-108 (online: www.vho.org/D/Kardinal/Wahrheit.html); Engl.:“Critique of Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie” (online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html).

55 G. Wellers, “ Der Leuchter-Bericht über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz”, Dachauer Hefte, 7(7) (November 1991), pp. 230-241.

56 J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, B. Trzcinska, Expert Opinion, Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Insti-tute for Forensic Reserach, department for toxicology, Cracow, Sept. 24, 1990; partially pub-lished, e.g. in: “ An official Polish report on the Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ ”, JHR, 11(2)

(1991), pp. 207-216 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/IHR207-216.html)57 J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Z XXX (1994) pp. 17-27(online: www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report).



3. T HE O RIGINS

35

ses—so that their results were flawed.58 Correspondence with the au-thors failed to elucidate the reasons for the deliberate use of an incor-rect method.59

In 1997 in France, distribution of the French edition of the presentreport produced two notable reactions, only one of which addressedfactual arguments,60 but which nevertheless failed to discuss the tech-nical problems in a scientific manner.61 The Chemical Department of the French Academy of Sciences chose not to make a comment pub-licly on factual arguments, but rather to resort to polemic phraseologyand personal attacks.62

In 1998, in the United States, in answer to the present report, a paper appeared on the Internet, consisting partly of discussion of techni-cal issues and partly of political name-calling.63 In related correspon-dence,64 however, the author of the paper avoided any discussion of thecentral issues.65

In 1999, cultural historian Prof. Robert Jan van Pelt produced anexpert report on Auschwitz for the defense in the libel case of British

58 G. Rudolf, “ Leuchter-Gegengutachten: Ein Wissenschaftlicher Betrug?”, in DGG 43(1)(1995) pp. 22-26 (online: www.vho.org/D/Kardinal/Leuchter.html); Engl.: “Counter-Leuchter

Expert Report: Scientific Trickery?” (online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html );summarized in Rudolf, “ A Fraudulent Attempt to Refute Mr. Death”, online:www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Fraudulent.html.

59 G. Rudolf and J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, “ Briefwechsel ”, in: Sleipnir , 1(3) (1995) pp. 29-33; reprinted in Herbert Verbeke (ed.), op. cit. (note 54), pp. 86-90 (online Engl.: asnote 58).

60 B. Clair, “ Revisionistische Gutachten”, VffG, 1(2) (1997), pp. 102-104 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1997/2/Clair2.html).

61 G. Rudolf, “ Zur Kritik am Rudolf Gutachten”, ibid., pp. 104-108 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1997/2/RudGut2.html).

62 La Vielle Taupe/Pierre Guillaume, “ Rudolf Gutachten: ‘psychopathologisch und gefährlich’.Über die Psychopathologie einer Erklärung ”, VffG, 1(4) (1997), pp. 224f. (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Guillaume4.html).

63 Richard J. Green, “The Chemistry of Auschwitz”, May 10, 1998, online: holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/, and “ Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues”, March 25, 1998,online: holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/, with considerable proselytizing ‘anti-fascist’ bias.

64 A detailed description of the deficiencies of the paper appeared in “ Das Rudolf Gutachten inder Kritik, Teil 2”, VffG 3(1) (1999), pp. 77-82 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1999/1/RudDas3.html); Engl.: “Some considerations about the ‘GasChambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau”, online: www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html.

65

Richard J. Green, Jamie McCarthy, “Chemistry is Not the Science”, May 2, 1999, online:holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/. About 50% of the article consistsof political accusations and vilification. For a response, see G. Rudolf, “Character Assassins”,online: www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html.




36

Historian David Irving against American writer Deborah Lipstadt.66 This report represents a retreat to the argumentative situation beforeJean-Claude Pressac’s first book, published in 1989,67 ignoring almost

all arguments brought forward by revisionists since that year.68

In2002, however, Prof. van Pelt published a summary of the evidence presented at said trial and his interpretation of it.69 This book is the firstin English to intensively discuss various revisionist arguments, for which he mainly relies on the works of J.-C. Pressac.70 It is a pity,though, that the cultural historian van Pelt tries to address manychemical, toxicological, engineering and architectural questions for which he simply lacks both expertise and experience.

Most of the above-mentioned attempted refutations of the Leuchter Report , and subsequent discussion with other revisionists, aremarred by personal insinuations about the motivations of persons mak-ing use of revisionist arguments, or by polemical excursions, neither of which contribute to the scientific discussion.

3.2. On PoliticsThe question of whether or not systematic mass-killings of Jews in

homicidal gas chambers specifically constructed for the purpose of accomplishing their extermination took place under the National So-cialist regime is apparently viewed as a political issue. Whether or nota moral appraisal of the National Socialist regime depends on the exis-tence or non-existence of gas chambers is disputable. A politicalevaluation of the Third Reich is not significantly dependent upon this

66 Pelt Report , introduced in evidence during the libel case before the Queen’s Bench Division,Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving vs. (1) Penguin BooksLimited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 113.

67 Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, Beate-Klarsfeld-Foundation, New York 1989.

68 Cf. G. Rudolf, “Gutachter und Urteilsschelte”, VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 33-50 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Rudolf33-50.html); more exhaustively, in English, online:www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html and …/CritiqueGray.html.

69 Robert J. van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial , Indiana UniversityPress, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2002; cf. Robert H. Countess, “Van Pelts Plädoyer gegenden gesunden Menschenverstand ”, VffG, 6(3) 2002), pp. 349-354; Paul Grubach, “Greuel-

propaganda des Ersten Weltkriegs und der Holocaust ”, ibid., pp. 354-359 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/2002/3/Countess349-354.html and …/Grubach354-359.html).70 When he addresses chemical questions, he also refers to some degree to the work of R. Green,

op.cit. (notes 63, 65).



3. T HE O RIGINS

37

moral evaluation. Since the present dis-cussion contains neither a moral, nor political, evaluation of a long-dead re-

gime, I shall make no moral or politicalstatements. Personally, I am inclined to judge a politician, or political system,on the basis of what he, or it, was ableto leave behind for their respective population—everything else follows.That must suffice at this point.

To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated bya desire to whitewash National Social-ism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I wouldlike to say the following:

While researching, our highest goalmust at all times be to discover howhistorical events actually occurred—as

the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Histori-ans should not place research in the service of making criminal accusa-tions against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that re-search be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusa-tions would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspi-cion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were notso, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan

forever be defined solely by Khan’s victims and enemies?The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both

revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views.The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating Na-tional Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even crimi-nal, is a boomerang: This accusation implies that it is deemed unac-ceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by

71 The Globe and Mail , Sept. 18, 1989, Le Monde, Sept. 19, 1989, Sunday Telegraph, Sept. 24,1989; see also “ Revisionist Historian Suffers Savage Beating ” (co-doh.com/thoughtcrimes/8909FAUR.HTML).

Fig. 9: People who run out of arguments turn to

violence. Prof. Faurissonafter an attack by Jewishthugs, Sept. 16, 1989.

71




38

so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exon-eration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly notto be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National

Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at allcosts. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence,those accusing revisionists of misusing their research for political endshave themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is there-fore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political mo-tives—though quite a few of them certainly are—but with absolutecertainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow his-torically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible ‘moral’ spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politi-cians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who ar-gues the opposite does not understand scientific research and shouldnot presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic research.



39

4. A Brief History of Forensic Examina-tions of Auschwitz

4.1. IntroductionIn late spring 1993, the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Re-

search in Stuttgart issued an internal memorandum informing its employees that a doctoral candidate there—the author of this book—had

been dismissed because of private research he had done on Auschwitz.The institute explained that in view of the horror of the National So-cialists’ crimes against the Jews, it was morally repugnant to discussthe specific manner, in which the victims had been killed, or to try todetermine the precise number of the dead. That one of the world’sleading scientific research institutes stated to its personnel that to de-termine accurate quantities is not only unethical, but reprehensible, andcause for dismissal, is not without its own irony. However, many people are deeply moved by the question whether or not the monstrouscrime alleged should be subject to careful scrutiny by means of thor-ough forensic analysis. The following attempts to answer this questionand offers a brief overview on forensic examinations of the purportedcrimes scenes at Auschwitz which have been conducted thus far.

4.2. The Moral Obligation of Forensic ExaminationDoes it really matter how many Jews lost their lives in the German

sphere of influence during the Second World War? Is it so important,after so many years, to attempt painstakingly to investigate just howthey died? After all, it is surely morally correct that even one victim isone too many; and nobody seriously denies that many Jews died.

To affirm these things, however, is not to raise a valid objection— moral or otherwise—to the scientific investigation of a crime held to be unique and unparalleled in the history of mankind. Even a crimethat is alleged to be uniquely reprehensible must be open to a proce-

dure that is standard for any other crime: namely, that it can be—must be—subject to a detailed material investigation. Further: whoever pos-




40

tulates that a crime, alleged or actual, is unique must be prepared for auniquely thorough investigation of the alleged crime before its unique-ness is accepted as fact.

If, on the other hand, someone sought to shield so allegedly unpar-alleled a crime from investigation by erecting a taboo of moral outrage,the creators of that taboo would, at least morally, themselves commit asingular offense: imputing unparalleled guilt, beyond any critique anddefense, in this case to an entire people, the Germans.

To demonstrate just what kind of double standard is being appliedto ‘the Holocaust’ (generally defined as the purposeful annihilation,chiefly by gassing, of millions of Jews by the National Socialists), letus note the international reaction to several recent examples of massmurder or ‘crimes against humanity.’

In 1949, a trial started in southwest France which caused as muchattention in France as did the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial: Mdm.Marie Besnard was accused of having murdered twelve people witharsenic. During this extraordinary court battle, 15 experts on medical,chemical, geological and analytical forensic experts made exhaustiveanalyses and long-lasting, extensive experiments with the aim to verifywhether the arsenic traces found in the buried victims stemmed from

poison or are the result of yet unknown concentration processes in bur-ied corpses. Finally, after twelve years of research and arguing of thefifteen experts, of which eight were professors and one even a NobelPrice laureate, Mdm. Besnard was acquitted due to lack of evidence.72

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, numerous massgraves, containing altogether hundreds of thousands of bodies of vic-tims of the Soviets, were discovered, excavated, and investigated. Notonly was the number of victims determined, but in many cases the spe-

cific cause of death as well. In the same regions where many of thesemass graves were found, one million Jews are said to have been shot by the Einsatzgruppen: yet no such grave has ever been reportedfound, let alone dug and investigated, in the more than half a centuryduring which these areas have been controlled by the USSR and itssuccessor states.

During the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, rumors about mass killings by Serbs spread around the world. After the fighting was over, an in-

72 Michael D. Kelleher, C. L. Kelleher, Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer , Praeger,

Westport, Conn., 1998.



4. A B RIEF H ISTORY OF F ORENSIC E XAMINATIONS OF AUSCHWITZ

41

ternational forensic commission arrived in Kosovo, searching, excavat-ing, and forensically investigating mass graves. These graves proved to be not only fewer than the Serbs’ Albanian opponents had alleged, but

to contain small fractions of the number of victims claimed.Did the Allies attempt, during the Second World War and in theyears immediately following, to find and to investigate mass graves of persons said to have been victims of the Germans? So far as is known,only once: at Katyn. But the findings of the Soviet forensic commis-sion, which blamed the mass murder of several thousand Polish offi-cers buried there on the Germans, are today generally considered a fab-rication. The report of the international forensic commission invited bythe Germans in 1943, on the other hand, which found that the Sovietshad carried out this mass murder, is today considered accurate even bythe Russian government.73

4.3. A Definition of Forensic ScienceForensic science is generally regarded as a supporting science of

criminology. Its aim is to collect and to identify physical remnants of acrime, and from these to draw conclusions about the victim(s), the per- petrator(s), the weapon(s), time and location of the crime as well ashow it was committed, if at all. This science is relatively new and en-tered the court rooms only in 1902, when fingerprint evidence was ac-cepted, in an English court, for the first time. The 1998 CD-ROM En-cyclopedia Britannica writes about forensic science:

“A broad range of scientific techniques is available to law enforce-ment agencies attempting to identify suspects or to establish beyond doubt the connection between a suspect and the crime in question. Ex-

amples include the analysis of bloodstains and traces of other body fluids(such as semen or spittle) that may indicate some of the characteristics of the offender. Fibres can be analyzed by microscopy or chemical analysisto show, for instance, that fibres found on the victim or at the scene of thecrime are similar to those in the clothing of the suspect. Hair samples,and particularly skin cells attached to hair roots, can be compared chemically and genetically to those of the suspect. Many inorganic sub-

stances, such as glass, paper, and paint, can yield considerable informa-tion under microscopic or chemical analysis. Examination of a document

73 Cf. F. Kadell, Die Katyn Lüge, Herbig, Munich 1991.




42

in question may reveal it to be a forgery, on the evidence that the paper on which it is written was manufactured by a technique not available at the time to which it allegedly dates. The refractive index of even small

particles of glass may be measured to show that a given item or fragment of glass was part of a particular batch manufactured at a particular timeand place.”

Hence, forensic research is exactly what revisionists, starting withRobert Faurisson, have called the search for material evidence. Therevisionists’ demand for such material evidence is entirely consistentwith the normal practice of modern law enforcement. Also, as is gen-erally acknowledged, forensic evidence is more conclusive than eye-witness testimony or documentary evidence.

Even though forensic methods have hardly been applied with re-gards to Auschwitz, there are a few examples which I shall discuss briefly in the following chapter.

4.4. Forensic Science and Auschwitz

4.4.1. Forensics in the Courts

4.4.1.1. The 1946 Cracow Auschwitz TrialThe 1946 Cracow Auschwitz Trial. In 1945, the Jan Sehn Institute

for Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) prepared a reporton a forensic investigation of Auschwitz that was submitted in evi-dence in the 1946 Auschwitz trial in Cracow, Poland.74 This expertreport should be treated with caution, because forensic examinationsand judicial procedures under the Communists have been anything buttrustworthy, and in 1945, Poland was a Stalinist satellite. One need

only point to the example of Katyn, the Soviet account of which wasfully endorsed by Poland’s Communist regime.73

The Cracow forensic investigators took hair, presumably cut frominmates, and hair clasps from bags found by the Soviets in Auschwitz.Tested for cyanide residues, both hair and clasps showed positive re-sults. Additionally, a zinc-plated metal cover was tested for cyanideand found to have a positive result as well. The Cracow Instituteclaims that this metal cover once shielded the exhaust duct of a sup-

74 Published in German, op. cit. (note 52), pp. 36-40; the original is in the Auschwitz State Mu-

seum.




43

posed homicidal gas chamber at Birkenau.The tests conducted by the institute were qualitative, not quantita-

tive, analyses. In other words, they could only determine whether or

not cyanide was present, not how much of it was there. As to whether or not homicidal gassing with hydrogen cyanide took place in Ausch-witz, these analyses are worthless, for three reasons:

1. There is no way of determining the origin and history of the hair and hair clasps obtained from bags in Auschwitz. Assuming thatthe analytic results are correct, from a chemical point of view thefollowing can be noted: A positive test for cyanide in human hair proves only that the hair has been exposed to HCN (hydrogencyanide). But that result does not suffice to establish that the per-sons from whom the hair came were killed by cyanide. It is a gooddeal more likely that the hair had already been cut when it was exposed to the gas: in German as well as in Allied camps, it wasstandard to cut off prisoners’ hair for hygienic reasons. When hair over a certain length was later reused,75 it had to be deloused be-forehand (often with Zyklon B, the active ingredient of which ishydrogen cyanide). Hence, positive cyanide results from loose hair do not prove human gassings.

2. We face a similar problem with the zinc-plated covers allegedlyused to cover the ventilation ducts of the supposed gas chambers:their exact origin and history is unknown. It would have been much preferable for the Cracow Institute to have analyzed samples fromthe walls of the alleged gas chambers instead of obtaining samplesfrom pieces of metal:a. Whereas the origin and history of these metal covers was uncer-

tain, the origin and (at least partly) the history of the walls of the

morgues allegedly used as gas chambers was known. b. In contrast to cement and concrete, zinc-plated metal covers

prevent the formation of stable iron cyanide compounds.76 Thedeveloping zinc cyanide compounds are relatively unstable andmust be expected to vanish in a short period of time.77

75 Letter from the SS-Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt, Oranienburg, to concentrationcamp commanders, August 6, 1942, IMT Document 511-USSR, cited in: Der Prozeß gegendie Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof (Nuremberg, 1949),

pp. 553f. The letter ordered the recycling of prisoners’ hair twenty centimeters or more inlength.76 Zinc prevents the formation of rust, which is required to form long-term stable iron cyanides.77 Like earth alkaline cyanides, zinc cyanides are slowly decomposed by humidity.




44

c. The tendency of porous wall material in moist undergroundrooms to accumulate and to bind hydrogen cyanide, physicallyas well as chemically, is hundreds of times higher than that of

sheet metal.78

d. As a matter of fact, the letter accompanying the samples sent tothe Cracow Institute actually mentions that a mortar sample al-legedly taken from a so-called gas chamber is enclosed as welland should also be tested for cyanide. However, for unknownreasons, the Cracow Institute did not mention this mortar samplein its report, perhaps because it did not show any positive result.

3. It is unknown where those zinc-plated metal covers are today. It isfurthermore impossible to identify them, since the Cracow reportdoes not include a description or photo of them. Therefore, thisanalysis cannot be reproduced.

4.4.1.2. The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz TrialSeveral expert reports were prepared during the Frankfurt Ausch-

witz trial, the best known being those of the Munich Institut für Zeit- geschichte (Institute for Contemporary History).79 However, none of

these reports was forensic in nature. They addressed legal, historical,or psychological topics. Throughout this mammoth trial, the court, the prosecution,80 and the defense81 never suggested that material traces of the alleged crime be secured and investigated. The prosecution had atits disposal numerous statements by eyewitnesses and confessions by perpetrators, and it considered this material entirely sufficient to estab-

78 For this, see chapter 6.7.79 H. Buchheim et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates, Walter, Freiburg 1964.

80 Throughout his writings, Adalbert Rückerl, one of the most prominent German prosecutors in‘Holocaust cases’, dispenses with any mention of material evidence. Instead, he declaresdocumentary evidence the best and most important form of evidence, even in the absence of material evidence for the authenticity and correctness of the documents themselves (in J. We-

ber, P. Steinbach (eds.), Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Strafverfahren?, Olzog, Munich1984, p. 77). Rückerl reports that it is practically impossible to find a suspect guilty solely ondocumentary evidence, so that, especially given the increasing time span separating allegedcrimes from trial, it is almost always necessary to fall back on eyewitness testimony, eventhough its unreliability is clear, particularly in trials of so-called ‘National Socialist violentcrimes’ (A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht , C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1984, p. 249;Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse, dtv,

Munich 1978, p. 34; Rückerl, NS-Prozesse, C. F. Müller, Karlsruhe 1972, pp. 27, 29, 31).81 Such total naiveté, combined with legal incompetence, on behalf of the defense is best exemplified in Hans Laternser, Die andere Seite im Auschwitzprozeß 1963/65, Seewald, Stuttgart1966.




45

lish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a program to exterminateJews in Auschwitz and elsewhere during the Third Reich.82 The abun-dance of such evidence has since been used to argue that the lack of

documentary and material evidence was irrelevant.83

That no materialevidence was presented during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial wasfreely conceded by the court in its ruling:83

“The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery available in anormal murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event at thetime of the murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records,expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked anytrace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eye-witness testimony was only possible in rare cases. Where the slightest doubt existed or the possibility of a confusion could not be excluded withcertainty, the court did not evaluate the testimony of witnesses […]”

4.4.1.3. The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz TrialBetween January 18 and March 10, 1972, two architects responsi-

ble for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna,

Austria.

84

During the trial, an expert report on the possible interpreta-tion of the blueprints of the alleged gas chambers of the Auschwitz andBirkenau crematoria was presented to the court. The report concludedthat the rooms in question could not have been gas chambers, nor could they have been converted into gas chambers.85 Thanks to thisfirst methodologically sound expert report on Auschwitz, the defen-dants were acquitted.

82 One of the most prominent German advocates of this thesis is Professor Ernst Nolte in his book Streitpunkte, Propyläen, Berlin 1993, pp. 290, 293, 297.

83 Ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63; cf. I. Sagel-Grande, H. H. Fuchs, C. F. Rüter (eds.), Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, vol. 21, University Press, Amsterdam 1979, p. 434.

84 Ref. 20 Vr 6575/72 (Hv56/72), Jan. 18-March 10, 1972; this reference number is differentfrom the one Robert Van Pelt quotes in his report: The Pelt Report , op. cit. (note 66), p. 135 n.59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27 C Vr 3806/64).

85

Personal communication from the expert, who must, for the time being, remain anonymousfor fear of persecution and prosecution. See Michael Gärtner, “Vor 25 Jahren: Ein anderer Auschwitzprozess,” VffG, 1(1) (1997), pp. 24f. (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1997/1/Gaertner1.html)




46

4.4.2. Forensics Outside the Courts

4.4.2.1. In Search of Mass Graves

In 1966, the Auschwitz State Museum commissioned the Polishcompany Hydrokop to drill into the soil of the Auschwitz-Birkenaucamp and to analyze the samples. It is not known whether this researchwas done in the context of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. The results,however, vanished into the museum’s archives: they have never beenreleased, which by itself is revealing enough. Years later, however,several pages from this report were photocopied and sent to the Ger-man revisionist publisher Udo Walendy, who published them withcommentary in an issue of his periodical.86 Traces of bones and hair allegedly found at several places might indicate mass graves. The few pages published by Walendy, however, do not reveal whether thesefindings led to an excavation or a subsequent forensic study of thetraces. It is not even evident whether the bone and hair samples col-lected are human or animal remains.

4.4.2.2. Faurisson and the Consequences

As a result of Prof. Faurisson’s activities as described in chapter 3., forensic research on Auschwitz boomed since 1988. Each time aresearcher came to a conclusion contradicting the widely held views,he was socially ostracized and persecuted, like Prof. Faurisson, FredLeuchter, and Germar Rudolf, but when the results confirmed thereigning paradigms, the researchers were darlings of the media and politicians, like Jean-Claude Pressac, the researchers from the Jan-Sehn-Institute in Cracow, and more recently Prof. Robert van Pelt.69

It must therefore be stated that forensic research on Auschwitz is

not at all reprehensible, as stated by the Max-Planck-Institute in Stutt-gart. Such research was always done, more or less intensively. What isoften considered to be reprehensible, however, is a research result thatis unwanted by the public. This is an unfortunate bias, because sciencecan prosper only where any result is openly and freely published anddiscussed without researchers fearing punitive measures.

The present book is an attempt to give the reader an update aboutthe results of the ongoing forensic research on the two major camps of

86 Udo Walendy, Historische Tatsachen, no. 60, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsfor-schung, Vlotho 1993, pp. 7-10.




47

Auschwitz, the Stammlager or main camp close to the town of Ausch-witz itself, and the Birkenau camp some 3 km to the northwest of thetown. May it not lead to more persecution and ostracism of its author

than he already has experienced.87

87 For this, see the appendix at the end of this book.



49

5. Auschwitz

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. “Opera During the Holocaust We are all familiar with the name Auschwitz. Most people could

identify Auschwitz as a ‘death camp’ for the Jews. Many people might be capable of recalling that it was located in Poland. Many would be

uncertain of details, but would be at least familiar with the name. Inany case, it is a part of modern culture. Auschwitz is usually depicted as the place of incessant, methodical

and centrally-planned extermination of the Jews (not the Jewish race,as there is none.)

There are many accounts and descriptions about the total horror,the pervasive atmosphere of suffering and the impending assembly lineof death. Could such a place possibly have had a swimming pool for the prisoners? Could it have been equipped with a social-educational

centre, organized discussion groups, concerts, theatre, a children’schoir, opera performances—all run by, and for, the internees? Impos-

sible! That wouldn’t fit in with the image with which we are all famil-iar.

Anyone prepared to search books, papers, and videos presenting the non-establishment evidence and opinions—material which, signifi-cantly, is never available in mainstream book shops—will become fa-miliar with this information.

The swimming pool has appeared in published reproductions of various wartime aerial photographs. Of course, these photos could be

fakes; but the prisoner’s pool— now seen close-up– appears in a video filmed in modern-day Auschwitz. This video includes a rather surpris-ing interview with the head tour guide and the director of the modern-day camp, Dr. Franciszek Piper. The film was made by David Cole.

Mr. Cole is an American Jew. Perhaps the video is a forgery. But if the other facilities did, in fact, exist, then the swimming pool is quite

plausible. For evidence of the reality of the other facilities, let’s turn to noless a source than the Jerusalem Post (domestic edition), January, 25,




50

1995, (Features), page 7.This present writer has the original copy, it was sent to him from

Israel. One half-page article is entitled ‘Amidst the Killing, Children

Sang of Brotherly Love’. ‘In 1943, 10-year-old Daniel K. arrived in Auschwitz. Now a university professor, he looks back at a different face of the death camp’, runs the introduction. Professor K. writes:‘The Chorale from [Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony] was… performed bya Jewish children’s choir at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1943… I was amember of that choir… I… remember my first engagement with cul-ture, with history, and with music—in the camp…’

‘In March 1944, I was severely ill with diphtheria and was sent tothe camp hospital barracks. My mother had asked to be transferred to

stay with me in the hospital. [Response not stated]… Nurses, doctors,and patients survived…’

Why nurses, doctors, even hospitals, for people who were sent there to be killed? Why was the boy fed, clothed, and housed for be-tween two and three years? Daniel K continues:

‘One of the youth leaders of our group… asked to establish aneducation centre for children. He was given permission, and in a short time the education centre became a spiritual and social centre for the

family camp. [The family camp!] It was the soul of the camp.‘Musical and theatrical performances, including a children’s op-

era, were held at the centre. There were discussions of various ideolo- gies—Zionism, Socialism, Czech nationalism… There was a conductor named Imre… (who) organized the children’s choir. Rehearsals wereheld in a huge lavatory barracks where the acoustics were good…

‘(In) the fall 1944… huge masses of inmates fit for labour werebeing sent to Germany.’ (End quote.)

Ah, so ‘huge masses’ of them were kept fit to work! I have deliber-ately ignored the many usual references to extermination, gas ovens,and so on; they are available ad nauseam all around us.

My purpose is to bring to attention the admitted existence of theseleisure facilities. Their existence can no longer be doubted. Their exis-tence throws a new and thought-provoking light on those familiar sto-ries we all know: Could it be that Auschwitz was not quite the type of

place usually described?”

The above article by Dan McSweeney was published on May 1,1997, in the Australian newspaper Killoy Sentinel (New South Wales).



5. AUSCHWITZ

51

David Cole’s eye-opening video, described in the article, can still be purchased today.88 The leisure facilities described in the article aboveare in no way as unknown to the usual literature as represented here.

Rather, the literature of concentration camp experiences and the secon-dary literature dealing with the same subject is saturated with similar references to stays in hospital, expensive health care treatments of se-riously ill ‘unfit’ persons, dental clinics, kindergartens, concerts, sportsevents (Birkenau had its own soccer field), access to the city of Auschwitz, etc.). These descriptions are, of course, not the dominanttheme. They are mentioned in passing, alongside the well-known hor-ror stories and atrocities. It is only when one deliberately looks for such things and compiles them that one becomes aware of what a para-doxical image these contemporary witnesses of Auschwitz actually portray—and not just of Auschwitz, by any means. That should be suf-ficient ‘food for thought’ for any of us. A consistent analysis of theeyewitness accounts which have, in the meantime, multiplied to sheer infinity, from this point of view, remains to be compiled. Who dares to perform this thankless task?

5.1.2. On the History of the CampAlthough the name of Auschwitz, a town in Polish Upper Silesia,

is utilized as a synonym for the alleged National Socialist crime of anassembly-line extermination of Jews—frequently described as‘unique’—thus far, worldwide, there has never been any balanced de-scription of this concentration camp. Generally, only three books, fromthe thousands on the subject, are worth selecting for discussion here.

Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium, a work of post-war Polish-Commu-nist propaganda, resembles a sort of catalogue of chronological listingof actual and invented individual events, without any attempt to drawup a theoretically definitive and critical view of the existing materialon the history of the camp.89

Jean-Claude Pressac’s works concentrate almost exclusively on

88 “ David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper, Director, Auschwitz State Museum” , VHSVideo, distributed by CODOH, P.O. Box 439016, San Diego, CA 92143, USA (online: co-doh.com/cole.ra (includes audio)); for the abridged text-only version, see: David Cole, “ A

Jewish Revisionist’s Visit to Auschwitz”, JHR 13(2) (1993), pp. 11-13 (online: co-doh.com/gcgv/gcgvcole.html (excerpt))89 Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945, Rowohlt

Verlag GmbH, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1989.




52

only five buildings in the camp, the crematoria,67,90 but due to his lack of technical and architectural expertise, nevertheless fails miserably inhis self-appointed task of explaining the technique and manner of func-

tioning of these buildings.91

Robert van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, in their history of the city of Auschwitz, deal only superficially with the subject of the concentrationcamp,92 and van Pelt’s more recent book is perhaps a bit too narrowlyfocused on homicidal gassings and does not really go beyond whatPressac already presented.69

Books available on bookstore shelves are—for the most part—acompendium of eyewitness reports, scattered amongst serious attemptsat documentation and literary pretensions.93

Only in the very early 1990s, i.e., since the collapse of the Com-munist regime in Eastern Europe, did the files of those agencies of theThird Reich become available to us which allow a reliable history of Auschwitz camp to be written. The files of the Zentralbauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei Auschwitz (Central Construction Office of the

90 J.-C. Pressac, Les crématoires d’Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse, CNSR, Paris1993; German: Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes, Piper, Mu-nich 1994; if not mentioned otherwise, back references to this footnote refer to the Frenchoriginal.

91 For a criticism of Pressac’s first book, see R. Faurisson, JHR, 11(1) (1991), pp. 25ff.; ibid.,11(2) (1991), pp. 133ff. (online French.: www.vho.org/F/j/RHR/3/Faurisson65-154.html); F.A. Leuchter, The Fourth Leuchter Report , Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1991 (online:www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report4/leuchter4.toc.html); for critique of Pressac’s sec-ond book see: Herbert Verbeke (ed.), op. cit. (note 43); for a criticism of the principles under-lying Pressac’s methodology, see G. Rudolf, “Gutachten über die Frage der Wissen-

schaftlichkeit der Bücher Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers und LesCrématoires d’Auschwitz, la Machinerie du meurtre de masse von Jean-Claude Pressac”, in:W. Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf , Cromwell, London 1994 (Engl. online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/trc/index.html#expert-report); Pressac has since been the target of

massive, quite unscientific, attacks from Jewish quarters as well; see also Rivarol , March 22,1996, p. 8 (online: abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archFaur/RF960322.html); ibid., April 12, 1996, p.4; see also Pierre Guillaume’s criticism, De la misère intellectuelle en milieu universitaire,B.p. 9805, 75224 Paris cedex 05, 1995 (online:abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archVT/vt9309xx1.html).

92 Robert van Pelt, Deborah Dwork, Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present , Yale University Press, NewHaven and London 1996; see also Carlo Mattogno’s criticism “ Architektonische Stümpereien

zweier Plagiatoren”, VffG, 4(1) (2000), pp. 25-33 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Mattogno25-33.html; Engl.: “ Auschwitz 1270 to the Present ” (on-line: http://www.codoh.com/granata/irving-eng.html).

93 See, in this regard, Norman G. Finkelstein’s condemnation in Norman G. Finkelstein, Ruth

Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth, MetropolitanBooks, New York 1998; see also Richard Widmann’s criticism, “ Holocaust-Literatur versus Holocaust-Wissenschaft ”, VffG 2(4) (1998), pp. 311ff. (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1998/4/Buecher4.html).



5. AUSCHWITZ

53

Waffen SS and Police at Auschwitz),94 which are located in Moscow,the files of the Kriegsarchiv der Waffen SS (War Archive of the Waf-fen SS) in the Military-Historical Archives in Prague, and the files of

Auschwitz concentration camp, which are located at the AuschwitzMuseum, are especially important in this regard. Since there are morethan one hundred thousand documents in these archives, it will be nec-essary to wait for several years for the appearance of a seriously docu-mented work on the topic. It must be considered certain that such re-search, which is only just beginning, will lead to a further massive re-vision of our image of Auschwitz concentration camp.

In the absence of better documentation, in the following—as far asthe brief survey of the history of Auschwitz is concerned—I will relyupon the statements of Jean-Claude Pressac,67,90 where his statementsare undisputed, since Pressac is continued to be praised as the expertregarding the technique of Auschwitz.95

The installations of the Auschwitz I camp, also known as theStammlager (main camp) and located on the outskirts of the city of Auschwitz, originally formed part of the barracks of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy (later Poland), and were transformed into a con-centration camp after the German invasion of Poland in September

1939. Camp II, located in the vicinity of the city of Birkenau (knownas Auschwitz-Birkenau), was rebuilt after the start of the Russian campaign, officially as a Waffen SS prisoner of war camp for the receptionof Russian POWs. Both camps belonged to the same complex, withover 30 additional smaller camps in Upper Silesia, intended to supplymanpower, etc., for the chemical works recently built by the Germanson a large scale at Auschwitz, in particular the BUNA works of theGerman industrial giant I.G. Farbenindustrie AG for coal refining (liq-

uefaction and gasification plants for artificial rubber and fuel produc-tion), located close to the settlement Monowitz east of Auschwitz, seeFig. 10. Birkenau camp was used, among other things, for the recep-tion of unfit prisoners. The intended camp capacity of 200,000 to300,000 inmates, according to the final planning situation, was uniqueamong the concentration camps of the Third Reich. This capacity was

94 Tsentr Chranenija Istoriko-dokumental’nich Kollektsii (hereafter TCIDK ); see also the docu-

ments in the Gosudarstwenny Archiv Rossiskoy Federatsii.95 Cf. Manfred Köhler, “ Pressac und die deutsche Öffentlichkeit”, in: Herbert Verbeke, op. cit. (note. 43), pp. 19-30 (online: www.vho.org/D/anf/Koehler.html); Engl.: “ Pressac and theGerman Public”, online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Koehler.html




54

however never even approximately achieved.The cramming together of large number of people in the most re-

stricted areas of the camp, the sanitary infrastructure of which was just

being developed, caused serious health problems in all camps of theThird Reich. Both inmates and hundreds of civilians working in thecamps could introduce all sorts of parasitic insects into the camp, in particular lice and fleas. Lice are the chief carriers of epidemic typhuswhich was a widespread disease in Eastern Europe. Therefore, thecamps were equipped with hygienic installations, including extensivedisinfestation installations, in which the clothing and personal effectsof newly arriving inmates were disinfested, for instance with the insec-ticide Zyklon B (a porous carrier material soaked with liquid hydrogencyanide), a product frequently used for this purpose. The inmatesthemselves were given a haircut96 and were made to shower thor-oughly. Since the camp was at times insufficiently equipped with dis-infestation installations and materials, also aided by the carelessnessduring disinfestation on the part of civilians working in the camp, typhus epidemics broke out repeatedly killing large numbers of inmatesas well as guards.

Due to the high mortality rate, these camps were equipped with

cremation facilities. After a devastating typhus epidemic during thesummer of 1942, during which more than 300 people died per day in peak times, plans were made to build four cremation facilities at Birk-enau in the hope of being able to cope with the amount of corpses. Of these four crematoria, however, two were severely damaged shortlyafter they were put into operation. Since it turned out that the capacityof the four Birkenau crematoria was much higher than needed, the twodamaged crematoria were not repaired but were allowed to remain idle.

The main camp in Auschwitz possessed only one crematorium installa-tion which was put out of operation with the opening of the installa-tions at Birkenau.

Historians today usually assume that the above mentioned crema-tion installations were not only used for the purpose initially planned,i.e., the incineration of inmates having died of natural causes, but werelater misused for the mass extermination of the Jews, among others.According to these historians, the term “arbeitsunfähig ” (unfit for la-

96 In the Third Reich, hair cut to a certain length is alleged to have been collected for industrial

purposes, after previous delousing, see note 75.



5. AUSCHWITZ

55

bor), used in relation to prisoners, was equivalent in meaning to ‘unde-serving of life’. This implies that any arriving inmates who were un-able to work were killed immediately. For this purpose, human beings

are said to have been killed (‘gassed’), after a few structural modifica-tions, in a few rooms in the particular cremation installations, usingZyklon B—actually intended for vermin control. Allegedly, the victimswere then burnt, some of them in the cremation ovens and some inopen ditches.

According to eyewitness accounts, a homicidal gas chamber issupposed to have existed in the crematorium of Auschwitz I; this loca-tion still exists today, intact, but has been the object of serious manipu-lation, as we shall see. Additional homicidal gas chambers are said tohave existed in the Birkenau camp, Auschwitz II, located approxi-mately three kilometers away. These gas chambers were allegedly lo-cated in the four crematoria of that camp, as well as in two farmhousesoutside the actual camp itself, modified for homicidal gassing purposes.

Of the installations used for disinfestation in the Birkenau campusing Zyklon B, only buildings 5a and b (BW 5a/b) in construction sec-tions 1a/b ( Bauabschnitt 1a/b) remain intact. In these buildings, one

wing each is said to have been temporarily used for the disinfestationof personal effects with hydrogen cyanide. The following is an archi-tectural and structural description of the individual structures of theAuschwitz main camp and Birkenau, Figs. 11 and 12.




56

F i g.1 0 : M a p of t h e

s ur r o un d i n gv i c i ni t y of

A u s c h wi t z d ur i n g t h e

S e c on d W or l d W a

r .T h e

b o un d ar y l i n e s of t h e

t er r ai n of t h eI G

F ar b eni n d u s t r i ef a

c t or i e s

w er e en t er e d l a t er

, an d ar e

onl y an a p pr ox i m a

t e

i n d i c a t i on of t h ef a

c t or y

t er r ai n.T h e t er r ai n

of

B i r k en a u c on c en t r a t i on

c am p c or r e s p on d s

t o t h e

pl anni n g s i t u a t i on of 1 9 4 5 ,

wh i c h w a s ,i nf a c t ,n ev er

c om pl e t e d .



5. AUSCHWITZ

57

Fig. 11: Map of Auschwitz I/Main Camp (concentration camp), according tothe information brochure of the Auschwitz State Museum in 1991.

Block 1—28: inmate barracksa: commandant’s house h: crematorium I with ‘gas chamber’ b: main guard station i: guard station near camp entrance gatec: camp commandant’s office (block leader room)d: administration building j: camp kitchene: SS hospital k: inmate registration building

f,g: political division l: camp warehouse, theatre building m: new laundry




58

Fig. 12: Map of POW camp Auschwitz II/Birkenau, approximately 2 km north-west of the main camp, construction situation as of the end of 1944. The shaded

buildings still exist, some of them, however, only in the form of ruins or foundations (crematoria II-V), the rest having been torn down by Polish civiliansfor building materials after the war. According to the information brochure of the

Auschwitz State Museum, 1991.BI-III: building sector I to III K IV: crematorium IV with ‘gas chamber’ BIa/b: women’s camp K V: crematorium V with ‘gas chamber’

BIIa: quarantine camp S: ‘ Zentralsauna’, hot-air/steam disinfestationBIIb: family camp T: pond BIIc: Hungarian camp 1: building sector 5a—Zyklon B disinfestationBIId: men’s camp 2: building sector 5b—Zyklon B disinfestationBIIe: gypsy camp 3: inmate barracks no. 13BIIf: inmate hospital 4: inmate barracks no. 20 K II: crematorium II with ‘gas chamber’ 5: inmate barracks no. 3

K III: crematorium III with ‘gas chamber’



5. AUSCHWITZ

59

5.2. Epidemics and the Defense Against them

5.2.1. Danger of Epidemics97 Before the era of modern warfare, it has always been taken for

granted that during a war epidemic disease caused more deaths amongthe soldiers and civilians than the use of weapons. It took the atomic bomb, deployed in a ruthless and criminal manner by the United Statesagainst unarmed people and in contravention of international law, tochange this assumption.

The epidemic most feared in World War I at the eastern front wastyphus.98 Typhus epidemics claimed uncounted thousands of livesamong German soldiers at the Russian front and could be preventedfrom spreading into German territory after the end of the war only bythe most rigorous of measures. Since that time, the danger of epidem-ics has been taken seriously by medical and military offices and per-sonnel.99

For example, the German encyclopedia Der große Brockhaus, vol.VI of the 1930 Leipzig edition, contains a comprehensive article on

epidemic typhus. This acute infectious disease is spread only by the body louse:100

“The disease is caused by Rickettsia prowazeki (discovered in 1910by Ricketts and in 1913 by Prowazek), a micro-organism found in the in-testines and salivary glands of infected lice. […]

Epidemic typhus occurs chiefly where unfavorable social and sani-tary conditions prevail: in dank overcrowded living quarters, hospitals,

97 The following remarks are largely based on H.J. Nowak’s study, “Shortwave Delousing Fa-cilities in Auschwitz”, in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 43), pp. 312-324 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndNowak.html).

98 Epidemic Typhus, which is also called European, Classic, or Louse-Borne Typhus, or JailFever, is a louse-borne disease caused by bacteria belonging to the Rickettsia group. WhereasTyphus is the term used in English to refer to all diseases caused by various Rickettsia bacte-ria, the German term is “Fleckfieber”, which, in English, is used only for one type of typhus,the so-called Rocky Montain Spotted Fever that is transferred by ticks; seehttp://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section13/chapter159/159a.htm

99 O. von Schjerning, Handbuch der Ärztlichen Erfahrungen im Weltkrieg 1914/1918, volume

VII Hygiene, J. A. Barth Verlag, Leipzig 1922, in particular, pp. 266ff: “Sanierungsanstaltenan der Reichsgrenze”.100 The Brockhaus Encyclopedia refers to the article by A. Schittenhelm, “ Flecktyphus” in Hand-

buch der Inneren Medizin, 2nd ed., 1925.




60

prisons, emigration ships, caused by crop failures and price increases,thus also known as starvation, hospital, prison, ship or war typhus. Ty-

phus is endemic in Russia, the Balkans, northern Africa, Asia Minor,and Mexico. According to Tarrassevich, 25-30 million people suffered

from epidemic typhus in Russia in 1918-1921, which amounts to 20-23%of the population. […]

Successful control and prevention of epidemic typhus consists of en- forcing all measures available to destroy the body louse.”

The experiences of German physicians during WWII were no dif-ferent.101,102 The topic of epidemics can be found in countless publica-tions. Practical experiments were also conducted which increased the

knowledge about fighting the causes of this disease.Professor Dr. F. Konrich was completely justified in stating, in his publication “ About sanitation facilities of German POW camps”103 thatepidemics such as those in question “[…] had long been extinct here[in Germany].” However, it also becomes quite understandable why allof the offices and institutions involved over-reacted when epidemictyphus broke out in the Auschwitz concentration camp in early July1942.104 The outbreak was traced to the civilian laborers brought in towork in the camp, rather than to inmates deported to Auschwitz. Also,

due to drastic measures taken to isolate and eradicate this epidemic, itsspreading to the camp’s nearby civilian population could be prevented.

5.2.2. Epidemic Control with Zyklon BOne of the most efficient methods to fight lice and thereby to con-

tain and eliminate typhus—but also to kill other vermin like grain bee-tles, bugs, cockroaches, termites, mice, rats and many more—is their poisoning with highly volatile hydrogen cyanide.

Liquid hydrogen cyanide has a short shelf life and is extremelydangerous with incorrect handling. At the end of the First World War,hydrogen cyanide was introduced onto the market in an easier to han- 101 R. Wohlrab, “ Flecktyphusbekämpfung im Generalgouvernement ”, Münchner Medizinische

Wochenschrift , 89(22) (1942), pp. 483-488.102 W. Hagen, “ Krieg, Hunger und Pestilenz in Warschau 1939-1943”, Gesundheitswesen und

Desinfektion, 65(8) (1973), pp. 115-127; ibid., 65(9) (1973), pp. 129-143.103 Friedrich Konrich, “Über die Sanierungsanstalten der deutschen Kriegsgefangenenlager ”,

Gesundheits-Ingenieur , July 19, 1941, pp. 399-404.104 Cf. Wilhelm Stromberger, “Was war die ‘Sonderbehandlung’ in Auschwitz?”, Deutschland inGeschichte und Gegenwart , 44(2) (1996), pp. 24f. (online:www.vho.org/D/DGG/Strom44_2.html).



5. AUSCHWITZ

61

dle and safer form: porous materials soaked with hydrogen cyanidewith the addition of a stabilizer and an irritant warning material, in-tended to warn people of low concentrations of hydrogen cyanide,

which in lower concentrations has only a slight odor and that many people cannot even smell at all. This product, called Zyklon B, wasthen packed in tin cans, which can only be opened with a special tool.The number of patents filed for the additives to Zyklon B shows thatthere was no simple, clear solution to the problems relating to thestabilizers and irritant warning materials.105 Legally, there was a greatdifference between the stabilizer for Zyklon B and the irritant warningmaterial. A stabilizer for Zyklon B was required by German law,106 while an irritant warning material, by contrast, was not legally re-quired.107

Zyklon B was licensed and produced by the DEGESCH108 corpo-ration residing in Frankfurt.109 Until the end of the Second World War,it played an extraordinarily important role in the struggle against insect pests and rodents110,111 in food warehouses, large-scale means of trans- 105 See also, in this regard, Wolfgang Lambrecht, Otto Karl, Das Handelsprodukt Zyklon B, soon

to be published on the internet at www.vho.org/D/Beitraege/Zyklon.html.106 Deutsche Reichsbahn Eisenbahnverkehrsordnung (EVO, German Reich railway regulations),

annex C to §54 EVO, Vorschriften über die nur bedingt zur Beförderung zugelassenen Ge- genstände vom 1. Okt. 1938 (Regulations on Objects Permissible for Restricted TransportOnly, dated 1 October 1938) , p. 50:

“Die Blausäure muß durch einen von der Chemisch-Technischen Reichsanstalt nach Art und Menge anerkannten Zusatz, der zugleich ein Warnstoff sein kann, beständig gemacht

sein.” (The hydrogen cyanide must be stablized by an additive, which may also be an irri-tant, in the manner and quantity recognized by the Chemical-Technical Reichs Founda-tion.)

107 L. Gaßner, “ Die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen der Anwendung hochgiftiger gasförmiger Stoffe zur Schädlingsbekämpfung in Deutschland” (The legal provisions relating to the use of highly poisonous gaseous materials for pest control in Germany) in Karl Greimer, Handbuch des

praktischen Desinfektors, Th. Steinkopf, Dresden 1937, pp. 185f. The fact that Auschwitzconcentration camp received Zyklon B without an irritant is therefore not so unusual as some-times represented in the literature, i.e., as a ‘criminal trace’. The well-known exceptional regu-lations for the Waffen SS are no exception; they merely referred to the applicable Reichs regu-lations and implementation provisions regulating the use of Zyklon B; see Deutsches Reich,“ Anwendung von hochgiftigen Stoffen zur Schädlingsbekämpfung durch die Waffen-SS ”,Rund-Erlaß des Reichsministers für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft vom April 3, 1941, quotedacc. to Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung , 33 (1941), p. 126.

108 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpung (German Society for Pest Control), a sub-sidiary of the I.G. Farbenindustrie AG.

109 On the history of the firm, mixed with Holocaust story telling, see Jürgen Kalthoff, Martin

Werber, Die Händler des Zyklon B, VSA-Verlag, Hamburg 1998; much more factual andtechnically correct is the work by Wolfgang Lambrecht, Otto Karl, op. cit. (note 105).110 O. Hecht, “ Blausäuredurchgasungen zur Schädlingsbekämpfung ”, Die Naturwissenschaften,

16(2) (1928), pp. 17-23.




62

port like trains, ships, both inEurope and in America.112 For example, Dr. G. Peters reports

in his work Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung (Hy-drogen Cyanide for Pest Con-trol)113 about the fumigationof ships with hydrogen cya-nide, which happened in theUnited States as early as 1910,and about tunnel facilities, inwhich entire railway trainscould be driven into in order to be disinfested (see Fig. 13). The use of Zyklon B in public build-ings, barracks, prisoner of war camps, concentration camps was alsofeatured in the literature of that time.114-117 Of course, there were sev-eral other gaseous pest control agents in addition to Zyklon B.118,119 Zyklon B continued to play an important role even after the war, untilit was largely replaced by DDT and its successors.120,121

A large number of publications are available from both the war-

time and pre-war periods, to which reference is made.113,114,117,122-126

111 G. Peters, W. Ganter, “ Zur Frage der Abtötung des Kornkäfers mit Blausäure”, Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 21(4) (1935), pp. 547-559.

112 G. Peters, “ Eine moderne Eisenbahn-Entwesungsanlage”, Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde,14(8) (1938) pp. 98f.; cf. F.P. Berg, op. cit. (note. 131).

113 Gerhard Peters, Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung , Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart 1933.114 Walter Dötzer, “ Entkeimung, Entseuchung und Entwesung ”, in J. Mrugowsky (ed.), Arbeit-

sanweisungen für Klinik und Laboratorium des Hygiene-Instituts der Waffen-SS , 2nd ed., Ur- ban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin and Vienna 1943.

115 F.E. Haag, Lagerhygiene, Taschenbuch des Truppenarztes, vol. VI, F. Lehmanns Verlag,Munich 1943.

116 F. Puntigam, “ Die Durchgangslager der Arbeitseinsatzverwaltung als Einrichtungen der Gesundheitsvorsorge”, Gesundheits-Ingenieur , 67(2) (1944), pp. 47-56.

117 For a more recent treatment of the topic, see: F.P. Berg, op. cit. (note. 131).118 G. Peters, Die hochwirksamen Gase und Dämpfe in der Schädlingsbekämpfung , F. Enke Ver-

lag, Stuttgart 1942.119 DEGESCH, Acht Vorträge aus dem Arbeitsgebiet der DEGESCH , 1942, p. 47; Document NI-

9098 from the Nuremberg Trials, table of properties of the gaseous insecticide/pest control product used by DEGESCH.

120 H. Kruse, Leitfaden für die Ausbildung in der Desinfektion und Schädlingsbekämpfung , Mus-

ter-Schmidt, Göttingen 1948.121 H. Kliewe, Leitfaden der Entseuchung und Entwesung , F. Enke Verlag, Stuttgart 1951.122 F. Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr , Son-

derveröffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes, Berlin 1943.

Fig. 13: A lice-ridden train enters a

railway gassing tunnel in Budapest.112



5. AUSCHWITZ

63

There are also guidelines on the fumigation of property and rooms,describing the procedures in detail, both before and afterwards.127,128 These do not considerably differ from the regulations in application

today.129

Based upon this, the following is a brief discussion of thetechnology and method of procedure employed.Initially, for the disinfestation of personal effects, ordinary rooms

(10 to 30 m2 surface area) were temporarily modified, by making thewindows and doors as gas-tight as possible by means of felt sealantmaterial and paper strips, while providing for proper heating and venti-lation of the rooms. Workers wearing gas masks spread Zyklon Bevenly on the floor of the room containing the property to be disin-fested. This procedure was similar to what was then the regular fumi-gation of ordinary rooms for the destruction of vermin. Such convertedrooms may be seen even today in the main camp of Auschwitz I. Theuse of temporarily sealed rooms for fumigation purposes is not withoutrisk since the sealing is never perfect.

Later, special gas-tight installations without windows were built,equipped with efficient heating and ventilation systems, and later alsowith circulating air systems for a more rapid circulation of the gas in-side the room (so-called “ DEGESCH-Kreislaufverfahren,” DEGESCH

circulation procedure, see Fig. 14). Cans of Zyklon B were opened bymeans of an exterior mechanism, so that the workers were no longer exposed to danger. The bottom of the can was automatically puncturedand the preparation fell into a basket, into which a fan blew hot-air,thus quickly evaporating the hydrogen cyanide and carrying the fumes

123 G. Peters, “Gefahrlose Anwendung der hochgiftigen Blausäure in Entlausungskammern”, Arbeitsschutz, 5(III) (1942), pp. 167f.

124 F. Puntigam, “ Raumlösungen von Entlausungsanlagen”, Gesundheits-Ingenieur , 67(6) (1944), pp. 139-180.

125 E. Wüstinger, “Vermehrter Einsatz von Blausäure-Entlausungskammern”, Gesundheits- Ingenieur , 67(7) (1944), p. 179.

126 A more recent summary of this topic was prepared by Friedrich P. Berg, “The German De-lousing Chambers”, JHR, 7(1) (1986), pp. 73-94 (online: codoh.com/gcgv/gcdelouse.html);cf. also Berg, op. cit. (note 131).

127 Entseuchungs- und Entwesungsvorschrift für die Wehrmacht , H. Dv. 194, M. Dv. Nr. 277, L.Dv. 416, Reichsdruckerei, Berlin 1939.

128 Richtlinien für die Anwendung von Blausäure ( Zyklon) zur Ungeziefervertilgung ( Entwesung),Gesundheitsanstalt des Protektorats Böhmen und Mähren, Prag o.J.; Dokument NI-9912(1) at

the International Military Tribunal, reproduced by Herbert Verbeke (ed.), op. cit. (note 43), pp. 94-99.129 Technische Regeln für Gefahrstoffe, TRGS 512, Begasungen, BArbBl. no. 10/1989, p. 72, in:

Robert Kühn, Karl Birett, Merkblätter Gefährlicher Arbeitsstoffe, ecomed, Landsberg 1990.




64

away. These installations, with the so-called circulation procedure,were relatively small in size, a few m3, to economize on the highly-expensive vermin destruction product.

These professional installations were often part of an entire hygi-enic complex. As a rule, this building complex was organized approximately as follows in terms of purpose (see Fig. 15):103

– Undressing room, ‘dirty side’. People to be deloused removedtheir soiled clothing and handed them over for disinfestation/dis-infection.

– Shower. Prisoners washed themselves after undressing, plus some-

times other procedures, such as haircuts, medical examinations,including a sauna.

– Dressing room, ‘clean side’. Their own cleaned and sanitizedclothing was given back to the prisoners or substitute clothing wasissued to them since the cleaning may have lasted many hours.

– Disinfestation/Disinfection room. An area to clean and process theclothing combined with a laundry.

130 Ludwig Gaßner, “Verkehrshygiene und Schädlingsbekämpfung ”, Gesundheits-Ingenieur ,66(15) (1943), S. 174ff.; cf. F.P. Berg, op. cit. (note 131).

Fig. 14: DEGESCH delousing chamber with circulation feature.130



5. AUSCHWITZ

65

It was not uncommon for a crematorium to be installed in thesame building complex, as may still be seen at Dachau concentrationcamp today (near Munich), in which the new hygienic installation pos-sesses a series of DEGESCH circulating air installations for the disin-festation of clothing, with an undressing and redressing room to theright and left of the inmate showers, as well as a crematorium. (Theroom described as a “ gas chamber ” at Dachau today is actually theinmate shower, which is indispensable in the above schema, and whichhas been intentionally mislabeled by the Museum.)

The applicable concentrations during the disinfestation of clothingmight be very different according to the type of vermin and exterior conditions, and usually ranged from 5 to 30 g of hydrogen cyanide per m3 of air. The application time varied just as greatly, from under twohours up to ten hours and more. In the more modern installations with

heating (higher than 25°C) and circulating air/ventilation installations,good results could be attained with concentrations of 20 g per m3, al-ready after 1 to 2 hours. Disinfestation in ordinary rooms, on the other hand, could last up to 24 hours or more.

5.2.3. Epidemic Control in Auschwitz

5.2.3.1. Terminology Used and Responsibilities

We shall use the technical terms established in the 1939 GermanArmy Regulations ( Heeresdienstvorschrift 194),127 since these deter-mined how the personnel, i.e., the physicians and those who disin-fected the camps, were to proceed:

“ Disinfection

Disinfection means […]: destroying the disease-(epidemic-)causing agents on objects, in rooms, in excretions and on the bodies of infectious

persons.

Undressing room ‘Dirty Side’

Shower/Sauna

Dressing room ‘Clean Side’

Disinfestation/Disinfection/LaundryFig. 15: Schematic organization of a hygiene complex

Clothing pathway; Inmate pathway




66

Disinfestation

Disinfestation means: ridding rooms, objects and people of vermin(small life forms) that can transmit pathogens, cause economic damageor annoy man.”

The regulation quoted lists all known physical and chemical meansof disinfection and disinfestation. Similarly, a “work guideline” was re-leased in 1943 by the Sanitation Institute of the Waffen-SS: “ Ent-keimung, Entseuchung und Entwesung ”114 (Sterilization, Disinfectionand Disinfestation).

The authority in charge of sanitation in the Waffen-SS as well asin the concentration camps was the “ Hygieneinstitut der Waffen-SS ”132 (Sanitation Institute of the Waffen-SS), established in 1942 in Berlin,which set up a branch office in 1943 in Rajsko near Auschwitz, with its“ Hygienisch–bakteriologischen Untersuchungsstelle Südost d. W-SS ”(Sanitary and Bacteriological Testing Station Southeast of Waffen-SS).The files from this testing station have survived (151 volumes datingfrom 1943 to 1945).133

131 Der praktische Desinfektor , Heft 2, Verlag Erich Deleiter, Berlin 1941, inside cover; cf. F.P.Berg, “Typhus and the Jews”, JHR, 8(4) (1988), pp. 433-481 (online:

Fig. 16: Typical advertisement of the firm DEGESCH about the broad variety of applications of gassing methods offered: Flour mills, ships, stores,

grain storages, houses, railroad cars, trucks.131



5. AUSCHWITZ

67

The garrison physician (army medical officer) and the medical personnel were in charge of implementing all sanitary measures. This physician—and this was the case at Auschwitz as well—was to be

consulted as subject expert in all relevant matters of construction plan-ning and other things. Where hydrogen cyanide was to be used, re-quirements called for specially trained expert personnel. In Auschwitz,this role was filled by the “disinfectors”.

5.2.3.2. Procedures UsedGenerally, four procedures were used at Auschwitz for disinfesta-

tion and disinfection:

– hot air – hot steam – hydrogen cyanide – microwavesData on the disinfestation and disinfection installations in opera-

tion in Auschwitz camp may be taken from a listing dated January 9,1943: “ Hygienische Einrichtungen im KL und KGL Auschwitz”134 (Sanitary Facilities in the POW and Concentration Camp Auschwitz)

directed to the Amtsgruppenchef C (Berlin), and an “ Aufstellung über die im KL. und KGL. Auschwitz eingebauten Entwesungsanlagen Bäder und Desinfektionsapparate”135 (List of Disinfestation Facilities,Baths and Disinfection Systems Installed in the POW and Concentra-tion Camp Auschwitz), dated July 30, 1943.

The following capacities, taken from the last-mentioned docu-ment, relate to a 24-hour a day operation period.

a) In the concentration camp (protective custody camp):Block 1: One hot air disinfestation installation, manufactured

by the Klein corporation for 1,800 people and approximately 3,600 blankets since the fall of 1940.

Block 3: One hydrogen cyanide gas disinfestation installation

www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/8/4/Berg433-481.html).132 TCIDK 502-1-26-117.133 Heinz Bobrach et al., Inventar archivalischer Quellen des NS-Staates, K. G. Saur, Munich

1995, volumes 3/1, 1991. So far, we are aware of approximately 110,000 laboratory examina-tions. Many probative and highly informative facsimiles are to be found in Hefte von Ausch-

witz, nos. 1 through 19, special editions, Auschwitz State Museum Publishers, Auschwitz Mu-seum, since 1959.134 TCIDK 502-1-332-46/46a.135 TCIDK 502-1-332-9/10.




68

(i.e., Zyklon B), for 1,400 people and approximately20,000 pieces of laundry.136

Block 26: One hot air installation for 2,000 people.

Disinfestation building at Deutsche Ausrüstungs-Werke (Ger-man Equipment Works, i.e., Canada I): 1 hydrogencyanide gas disinfestation installation (BW 28) for approximately 30,000 pieces of laundry, blankets, etc.(in operation since the summer of 1942).

Civilian worker disinfestation barracks: One hot air disinfesta-tion installation, manufactured by the Hochheim corporation, with a daily capacity for 2,000 people, withlarge shower bath installation and disinfection appara-tus, permanently installed.

b) In the POW camp (K.G.L., Birkenau):BW 5a in B Ia: One disinfestation apparatus (manufactured by

Werner ) and one hot air apparatus (manufac-tured by Hochheim) in operation since Novem- ber 1942 for 2, 000 people.One chamber for hydrogen cyanide fumigationhas been built for 8,000 blankets and has been

in operation since the fall of 1942.BW 5b in B Ib: Installation as in BW 5a.

All the facilities listed therein were subject to modifications. Thenumber of sanitary facilities increased with the number of inmates, asthe two aforementioned documents already show. Pressac mentions 25chambers operated with Zyklon B, without providing a verifiablesource.137

5.2.3.3. ResultsThe results could only be compiled if one knew the number of per-

sons disinfested by means of the installation. These numbers have thusfar remained unclear. Although Danuta Czech claims in her book 89 thatsuch documents on large time periods are available in the Auschwitzarchive, we have so far been unable to examine them. As of the presentwriting, it is still impossible to make a reliable statement as to whether

136 According to Pressac, in operation since 1941/42, op. cit. (note 67), p. 25.137 Ibid., p. 550.



5. AUSCHWITZ

69

or not the existing disinfestation installations were consistently reliablefor the indicated number of persons. Pressac, in the conclusions to hissecond book,138 indicates the peak of the first epidemic between “7./11.

September ” 1942 with “375 deaths per day”, which clearly indicates thatthe capacity of the facilities available did not suffice.

5.2.3.4. Basic Policy DecisionsTwo policy decisions made by the SS-Hauptamt Haushalt und

Bauten (SS Main Office Budget and Construction) in the Reich Ad-ministration of the SS and its successor no doubt also influenced themeasures taken in the camp. The first decision of June 5, 1940,139

stated that HCN would no longer be used, and replaced instead with ahot-air method. The reason for this was probably that the use of HCNin makeshift delousing chambers was not reliable and had caused manyaccidents and was thus deemed too dangerous. The second decision,issued on March 11, 1942,140 21 months later, seems to have reversedthat first decision by calling for the “[…] conversion of all delousing

facilities to operation with HCN ”, in which regard it was noted:

“Deviations therefrom—delousing by means of hot air or hot

steam—is only permissible insofar as they involve temporary installa-tions, in which the necessary safety for the handling of HCN is not assured.”

A further letter from the Office C VI of February 11, 1943,141 tothe Commandant again expressly states, probably with reference to theletter of June 5, 1940: “[…] as per the prohibition against the use of

HCN for disinfestation […]”. This means that all efforts were to bemade to convert all facilities to be operated with the only really reliable

method available—HCN—but that the use of HCN was allowed onlywhere and if the necessary safety and reliability of the method was as-sured, i.e., makeshift delousing chambers were not allowed to be oper-ated with HCN.

Men in positions of authority, accustomed to decision-making, andfaced with a dangerous epidemic capable of spreading to the civilian population with incalculable consequences, will always take suitable

138

J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 90), p. 157139 TCIDK 502-1-333-145140 TCIDK 502-1-336-94141 TCIDK 502-1-332-37




70

measures and act accordingly. Hydrogen cyanide (= Zyklon B) was themost reliable disinfestation agent of its time (for details, please see“ Blausäure als Entlausungsmittel in Begasungskammern”,142 or “ Ent-

lausung mit Zyklon-Blausäure in Kreislauf-Begasungskammern”.143

The only problem was in finding a safe location for such facilities, perhaps outside the actual camp (see chapter 5.4.3.).

5.2.3.5. The Army Medical Officer On September 9, 1942, Dr. E. Wirths was stationed in Auschwitz

as garrison physician. From the records we may say that he performedhis duties correctly; in this context, reference is made, in particular, to

his massive criticism of the highest echelons.As time went by, the number of inmates increased steadily, andunfortunately there were more than just one epidemic. We shall there-fore briefly summarize, by means of examples, the conclusionsreached by this physician and the steps he took in consequence.

On December 4, 1942, Dr. Wirths reported to headquarters about adiscussion held in the administrative council of Bielitz District. Thesubject was epidemic typhus. A considerable number and range of per-

sons had participated in the discussion, including the medical officer,the Wehrmacht, and representatives of the government. This illustrateshow seriously the epidemic was taken to be:144

“He reports that at present three large disinfestation, shower, and sauna facilities could be put into operation, specifically two facilities for the inmates and one for the members of the SS troops. The capacity of these facilities is some 3,000 to 4,000 persons per 24 hours. Zyklon Bdisinfestation has been discontinued entirely, since it has been found that

success is not 100% certain with this procedure.”

Buildings BW5a and 5b were intended for the inmates. The capac-ity of these disinfestation facilities was probably adequate for the number of inmates at this time. One must consider, however, that at thissame time the structural shell for another 19 DEGESCH circulation

142 Gerhard Peters and W. Rasch, “ Die Blausäure als Entlausungsmittel in Begasungskammern”, Der praktische Desinfektor , September 1941, pp. 93-96.

143 Gerhard Peters, Emit Wüstinger, “ Entlausung mit Zyklon-Blausäure in Kreislauf-

Begasungskammern. Sach-Entlausung in Blausäure-Kammern”, Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung , issue 10/11 (1940), special printing. TCIDK 502-1-332-86/90; it arrived at the Auschwitz construction office on July 3, 1941.

144 TCIDK 502-1-332-117/119



5. AUSCHWITZ

71

fumigation chambers was being completed in Building BW160 of theMain Camp (Admissions building). Another paragraph of the aboveletter states that the garrison physician of Kattowitz had provided the

loan of two mobile boiler installations.On April 18, 1943, Wirths reports to the Commandant, with warn-ing reference to the sewer system in Birkenau, and concludes that “[…]

great danger of epidemics is inevitable.”145 On May 7, 1943, in a discussion with the chief of Amtsgruppe C,

SS Brigadier General and Major General of the Waffen-SS engineer Dr. Kammler, and others, the garrison physician set out in chapter “ II.

Bauten in Zuständigkeit des Standortarztes” (II. Buildings Under theCharge of the Garrison Physician):146

“[…] that the continued health of the inmates for the major tasks isnot guaranteed, due to the poor toilet conditions, an inadequate sewer

system, the lack of hospital barracks, and separate latrines for the sick,and the lack of washing, bathing, and disinfestation facilities.”

Dr. Wirths clearly pointed out the inadequacies and also how torectify them.

At this point we must warn the reader, who may perhaps not be

sufficiently aware of the historical context, not to jump to false conclu-sions. The reader may well lack an understanding of all the problemsthat were involved in obtaining materials as well as all the other neces-sities required to build these facilities in wartime. Figuratively speak-ing, a written permission was required to purchase every brick.

We must also point out that, in those days in eastern Europe, asewer system of any kind at all was exemplary to start with, and thatthis is all the more true for sewage treatment facilities, which were built for both camps at great expenditure in resources and according tohigh technical standards.

The above quoted document continues:

“The Brigadier General acknowledges the foremost urgency of thesematters and promises to do everything possible to ensure rectification of the shortcomings. He is somewhat surprised, however, that the medical

side presents him with reports giving a very favorable account of the

sanitary and hygienic conditions on the one hand; while he is then im-

mediately confronted with reports to the exact opposite effect on the

145 TCIDK 502-1-332-219146 TCIDK 502-1-233-33/38




72

other hand. The Chief of the Zentralbauleitung is hereby instructed to present suggestions for rectification by May 15, 1943.” (Emphasis added.)

It began with the toilet facilities, with regards to which he en-

forced changes that he considered necessary. For example: lids on thetoilets, because otherwise “[…] a great danger of epidemics is inevita-ble.”147 These lids were ordered by the Head of Department C of theWVHA (Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt , Economic AdministrativeMain Office) on May 10, 1943.148 It ended with roofing matters relatedto the gypsy kindergarten:149

“For the damaged roofs of kindergarten blocks 29 and 31 in theGypsy Camp I request 100 rolls of roofing felt (very urgent.)”

In between, on May 28, 1943,150 he selected six circulating air de-lousing facilities which—as was noted down in handwriting—wereordered on May 29, 1943, by the Building Administration’s expert onheating matters, Jährling. Then there is an account of a water qualitytest on June 1, 1943,151 etc. This extensive correspondence resulted inseparate subject files in the filing system of the Zentralbauleitung ,such as “Sanitary Conditions”.152

The physician’s field of work was great and varied and deserved

its own monograph. He was even responsible for ensuring that the in-mates’ kitchen personnel were frequently examined—including labora-tory tests of their stool, etc. That Dr. Wirths truly saw to absolutelyeverything is obvious from the documents.

The garrison physician’s reminders and admonitions increasedover time. On balance, one must conclude that, just as today, whilethere were opportunists and careerists in those days, there were also— as our example shows—SS-men with backbone and a sense of duty,

professional ethics and the courage to stand up for their beliefs.At the end of the comments section of the Memorandum of May 9,1943, we find:

“ As stop-gap measure until that time, the Brigadier General pro-

vides the loan of a new short-wave delousing platoon.” (Emph. added.)

147 TCIDK 502-1-322-219148 TCIDK 502-1-322-31149 Taken from a letter of March 23, 1944 to the Zentralbauleitung (Central Construction Office)

in Auschwitz, TCIDK 502-1-332-175.150 TCIDK 502-1-332-28151 TCIDK 502-1-332-212152 TCIDK 502-1-149-135



5. AUSCHWITZ

73

5.2.3.6. Short-Wave Delousing FacilityPerhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of Auschwitz concen-

tration camp is the installation of a stationary short-wave installation,

the world’s first technological predecessor to the microwave ovens incommon use today. This technology was invented by Siemens in thelate 1930s and developed to mass-production readiness during the war.This was a by-product of the powerful radio tubes built for the televi-sion transmission of the Berlin Olympics in 1936, the energy-rich radiowaves which killed the insects in the vicinity of the antenna. The de-velopment took place with financial assistance from the Wehrmacht,which hoped to achieve a perceptible improvement in the struggle

against the epidemics raging in the east. Since the inmates assigned tothe armaments industries in the concentration camps were particularlyvaluable towards the end of the war, the Reich leadership decided notto put the first installation into operation at the front for the disinfesta-tion of soldiers’ clothing, but rather, in the largest Labor complex inthe Reich, in Auschwitz. Due to Allied bombing attacks, however,there was a one-year delay in the completion of this installation, which probably cost the lives of tens of thousands of inmates. The Auschwitz

camp administration had anticipated its installation as early as 1943and had therefore postponed other delousing projects. This facility, putinto operation during the summer of 1944, proved in fact to be of revo-lutionary effectiveness, both quick and cheap: personal effects weremoistened and placed on one end of a conveyor belt and emerged atthe other end a few minutes later, completely free of vermin and ster-ile.153

5.2.4. Disinfestation Installations BW 5a und 5bThe only buildings remaining intact in Auschwitz-Birkenau today,

possessing a wing for the disinfestation of personal effects with ZyklonB, are buildings ( Bauwerk , BW) 5a and 5b in building sections B1aand B1b, respectively. Both buildings were planned as mirror imagesof each other. The west (resp. east) wing of these buildings were used,

153 See also, in this regard, H.-J. Nowak, op. cit. (note 97); H. Lamker, “ Die Kurzwellen-

Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz, Teil 2”, VffG 2(4) (1998), pp. 261-272 (online:…/1998/4/Lamker4.html); an English summary appeared by Mark Weber, “ High Frequency Delousing Facilities at Auschwitz”, JHR, 18(3) (1999), p. 4. (www.ihr.org/ JHR/v18/v18n3p-4_Weber.html)




74

at least temporarily, for disinfestation with Zyklon B. These roomswere expressly labeled “Gaskammer ” (gas chamber) in the building plans, see Fig. 17.

This is no triviality: rather, it is important proof that the term‘gas chamber’, at that time, referred exclusively to installations for

the disinfestation of personal effects, both by architects during the

planning of such buildings, and by disinfestation experts. The title

of one of the most important contemporary publications on the

subject of cyanide disinfestation by F. Puntigam, H. Breymesser,

E. Bernfus: BlausäureGASKAMMERN [sic!!!] zur Fleckfieberabwehr

[hydrogen cyanide GAS CHAMBERS for the prevention of epidemic

typhus], or the term used in an advertisement of the firm

DEGESCH: “ gas chambers”, see Fig. 16, p. 66. This was simply the

ordinary designation for rooms used for the disinfestation of per-

sonal effects. Therefore, we must always assume, in the absence of proof to

the contrary, that use of the word ‘gas chamber’ in a German

Fig. 17: Ground plan of the HCN disinfestation wing of building 5a beforebuilding alterations (mirror image) and BW 5b today. BW 5b Sample taking

locations drawn in.154

a: Delousingwing

b: Sluice c: Vestibule

d: Washroom and shower e: Dirty side, undressing roomf: Clean side, Ankleideraum 16,17,19: Sample taking locations



5. AUSCHWITZ

75

document from this period refers to a room for the disinfestation

of personal effects!

For this reason, in the following, the term gas chamber will be

placed in single quotation marks at all times (‘gas chamber’), when-ever the word refers to chambers for the execution of human beings.There are two reasons for this:

1. The German technical term Gaskammer originally pointed ex-clusively to disinfestation chambers operated with toxic gas. Toapply the same term to chambers intended for the execution of human beings is an incorrect use of the term at that time.

2. Simply for the purpose of avoiding confusion as to the meaningof the word ‘gas chamber’ in each case, a distinction must bemade in writing.

Fig. 17 shows the ground plan of the two disinfestation gas chambers of building 5a and 5b approximately in their original condition.The chamber in building 5a was transformed in the summer of 1943

Fig. 18: Ground plan of the hot air disinfestation wing of building 5a after building alterations in 1943. BW 5a sample taking locations drawn in.

154

a: Hot air delousing chambersb: Vestibulesc: Shower room

d: Saunae: Undressing room

f: Dressing room9-15, 18, 20-22:Sample taking locations




76

and received two small hot air chambers, visible in Fig. 18.154 The

buildings have ordinary brick walls and a concrete foundation builtlevel with the ground, plastered and whitewashed on the interior withchalk-based mortar. The room in building 5b has no separate ceiling,the roof’s framework is covered from underneath with boards of anunknown material (perhaps Heraclite). Originally without windows,like building BW 5b today, the disinfestation wing of BW 5a wasequipped, during the building alterations, with windows firmly walledin which cannot be opened.

In the gable wall of the disinfestation room in BW 5b are two cir-cular openings, approximately 50 cm in diameter, corresponding to theformer ventilation exhaust and air intake channels, Fig. 19. The roof has three ventilation chimneys; there must have been three ovens inthis room during the time of operation.155 The double doors, openinginwards and drawn onto the plans, have been replaced with singledoors, also opening inwards. For the time being, one can only specu-

154

J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 55-58, Plans of Buildings 5a/b, pp. 59f. exterior photos.Building alteration plan no. 2540 for conversion to hot air delousing installation, dated July 5,1943.

155 Ibid., p. 53.

Fig. 19: Ventilation outlets from the disinfestation wing of building BW 5b,without equipment today. The ends of the water pipes are visible inside; see

also Fig. 20.



5. AUSCHWITZ

77

late on any equipment of the disinfestation chambers.The room has a surface area of approximately 130 m2, is open to

the framework of the roof, and therefore has a volume of at least 400

m3

. However, the space above 2 m in height must probably be consi-dered to have been unusable dead space, resulting in the waste of hugeamounts of HCN/Zyklon B, since a quantity of Zyklon B of at least 4to 5 kg (10 g per m3) cyanide content was necessary for just one gas-sing,156 regardless of whether the room contained only a few personaleffects or whether the available area was filled. For example, with 100fumigation cycles per year (one every 3 or 4 days) approximately 0.8tons of Zyklon B would have been consumed by this installation aloneand by building 5a, corresponding to 10% of the entire Zyklon B de-liveries to Auschwitz in 1942, with a total delivery of 7.5 tons.157

When one considers that there were other HCN disinfestation in-stallations in Birkenau in addition to this one; that the deliveries toBirkenau camp also supplied the related labor camps (more than 30 innumber); and the fact that inmate barracks were also occasionally fu-migated with this insecticide,158 it will be seen that the quantities of Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz camp can actually be explained bynormal delousing activities.

The annual delivery quantities were too low to ensure successfuldisinfestation of all personal effects and buildings in all camps in theAuschwitz complex, since typhus epidemics were never entirely elimi-nated.

How frequently the delousing chambers of BW 5a and 5b were ac-tually used for HCN disinfestation has to remain open for the time be-ing, since no documentation about this has been found yet, and also because the document cited above states that the use of Zyklon B had

to be abandoned as early as December 1942 (at least in unsafe installa- 156 The gross mass given on the label of a Zyklon B can always refered to the net HCN content of

the can, i.e., excluding the mass of the carrier material. That means for instance that a 1 kgZyklon B can consisted of 1 kg HCN plus some 2 kg of carrier material, i.e., a 1 kg can had atotal mass of some 3 kg.

157 Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, British Military Tribunal, Case against B. Teschet al., here, the sworn statement of A. Zaun, Hamburg Oct. 24, 1945, Document No. NI-11396; quoted according to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Prozeß, Verlag für Volkstumund Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1981, p. 62.

158

See also the Höß order relating to the avoidance of accidental poisoning during the disinfesta-tion of barracks, reproduced by J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 201. For each barracks witha volume of approximately 40m×12m×3.5m > 1,500 m3, this means a requirement of 15 kgZyklon B; the 100 barracks in Birkenau camp alone would require 1.5 tons!




78

tions), i.e., just a few weeksafter this installation was putinto operation (see p. 70).

A remarkable feature of this room in building BW 5bis the intricate construction of the water pipes, laid in thehooks fastened to the diagonalroof girders, visible in Fig. 20.A few of the pipe endings areequipped with shower heads.The water pipes have no con-nection. Paradoxically, theyend in the above mentionedventilation outlets, and canonly have been installed after the removal of the ventilatorsinstalled there. There are, of course, shower rooms in these buildings, but in a very differ-

ent location (see Fig. 17). Theshower installations once inexistence there, however, have been entirely dismantled. Since thedoors to these rooms are open, any visitor may examine this peculiar construction. The original German drawings and documents of this building do not indicate that these pipes were installed during theGerman occupation, which means that they were probably installedafter the war for an unknown reason.

5.3. ‘Gas Chamber’ in the Auschwitz I Main CampAccording to Pressac, no material or documentary evidence of the

‘gas chamber’ in the crematorium in the main camp exists, but thereare many eyewitness accounts:159

“As evidence to establish the reality of homicidal gassings thereremain only the testimonies of participants,[…]”

159 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 123.

Fig. 20: Water pipe system withshower heads in the disinfestation wing of building BW 5b. These water pipes

have no connection; they terminate inthe ventilation outlets. See Fig. 19.



5. AUSCHWITZ

79

These accounts, according to Pressac, are characterized by manycontradictions, technical impossibilities, and general incredibility. Heobserves a “ general tendency to exaggerate”, and explains the gross

errors and technical impossibilities in the eyewitness accounts andwritings of camp commandant Höß by stating:

“He was present, without seeing.”

That is, Pressac alleges that Höß had no idea of the methods, risksand dangers involved in the handling of Zyklon B. But this is in con-tradiction to an order issued by commandant Höß calling for cautionduring the fumigation of barracks with Zyklon B158 —caution whichhad become necessary in view of several cases of poisoning. This spe-

cial order of the commandant warning of accidents involving Zyklon Bgas, an order which was distributed throughout the camp, indicates aduty of care with regards to those inmates who were, allegedly andnevertheless, doomed to die from the effects of that same gas sooner or later. We will have occasion to speak of Höß’s testimony at a later time.

Pressac, moreover, explains the form and basic tone of the testi-mony of SS man Pery Broad as incorrect because this testimony is

soaked in Polish patriotism, to say nothing of the transparent Polishhatred against SS men, although Broad was an SS man himself and hadno links to Poland, and because Pressac found out that this ‘testimony’has been slightly reworked by the Poles, the original of which is miss-ing. In other words, this ‘document’, obviously patched together by thePoles, is quite worthless insofar as a critical examination of its sourceis concerned. Nevertheless, Pressac considers the basic testimonieswith regards to homicidal gassings to be correct.160

The ‘gas chamber’ in the main camp is a room in a ground level building, which replaced a former kitchen building of the former Austro-Hungarian barracks located at the same spot.161 The floor andceiling of crematorium I are of reinforced concrete while the exterior walls are of brick masonry, insulated on the exterior by a coating of tar. Except for the access ways, the building is practically undergrounddue to the fact that dirt has been piled up against the walls. The interior walls are plastered and whitewashed.

160 Ibid., pp. 126-128.161 Ibid., p. 129.




80

Fig. 21 shows the building plan of the building at the beginning of the war, planned and constructed as a normal crematorium, with amorgue.162 This also explains the piles of dirt, which were intended toensure an even, cool temperature. For the same reason, the partition between the morgue and the oven room is double-walled with a heat-insulating air-barrier in between.

As far as I know, no documents exist concerning the installation of a ventilation system into this morgue, though it appears inconceivableto operate a morgue without windows, exterior doors, and any kind of forced ventilation.

The morgue was later alleged to have been ‘converted’ into a ‘gaschamber’. Three to four hatches are later said to have been piercedthrough the roof for the introduction of the Zyklon B for homicidal

162 Ibid., pp. 151/153.

Fig. 21: Ground plan of crematorium I in Auschwitz I/main camp in its

original condition. The morgue was later alleged to have been used as a‘gas chamber’.

162

1: Vestibule; 2: Laying-out room; 3: Wash room; 4: Morgue;5: Oven room; 6: Coke; 7: Urns



5. AUSCHWITZ

81

gassings, as well as two hatches for the incorporation of heavy ventila-tors.163 The head of the Auschwitz Museum, Franciszek Piper, how-ever is of the opinion that:164

“In the case of Crema I there were no ventilators. The doors wereopened and the gas was allowed to ventilate by convection.”

Pressac reproduces a photo of the roof of the crematorium, taken by the Soviets shortly after the liberation, in which three dark spots onthe roofing felt are alleged to be troughs of former Zyklon B introduc-tion holes, allegedly now covered up.163,165 The photograph reproducedin his book is, however, too poor in quality to permit anything to be

163 Ibid., pp. 131f.164

D.D. Desjardin, “My Visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, May 30-31, 1996 ”, Interview mit F. Piper,online: codoh.com/newrevoices/nddd/ndddausch.html.165 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 149; photograph of the roof of crematorium I immediately

after the liberation.

Fig. 22: Ground plan of crematorium I Auschwitz I Main Camp after conversion to air raid shelter, 1944.

166

1: Sluice; 2: Operating room; 3: Former washroom, now air raid shelter withtoilet; 4: Air raid shelter; 5: Former oven room.




82

seen with clarity, much less permitting any conclusion as to the con-struction or engineering. Pressac’s speculation must therefore beviewed as groundless.

In the autumn of 1944, the crematorium was converted into an air raid shelter. The building alterations, especially the replacement of thethin partition by thick walls, can be seen in Fig. 22.166 The allegedZyklon B introduction holes as well as the ventilation holes are allegedto have been sealed at that time—assuming that they ever existed.

The building work undertaken for this conversion is described in adocument into the smallest detail.167 There is no mention of any filling inof any old existing holes pierced in the roof but rather of the incorpora-tion of gas-tight windows and doors as well as the piercing of new holes:

166

Ibid., p. 156.167 “ Herstellung der für die Beheitzungsöfen, sowie für die Ent- und Belüftung erforderlichenMauerdurchbrüche und Schläuche”, letter from the Auschwitz Air Raid Warden, Aug. 26,1944, TCIDK 502-1-401.

Fig. 23: Ground plan of crematorium I in Auschwitz I/Main Camp today,after subsequent fakery.

168

1: ‘Gas chamber’; 2: Fake Zyklon B introduction holes; 3: Toilet drains; 4:former partition morgue-washroom; 5: Ventilation chimney from air raid

shelter; 6: Air raid chute, today referred to as victim entryway; 7: Urns, 8:Coke; 9: Reconstructed ovens; 10: Newly pierced entry to oven room;

painted: old entryway; 11: Remains of the old oven; 12: Fake chimney.



5. AUSCHWITZ

83

“Installation of gas-tight doors, window shutters, and windows,

Manufacture of the openings in the masonry necessary for the heat-ing ovens, as well as for the ventilation outlets and intakes and pipes.”

This is a strong indication that before this time there were neither gas-tight doors and windows nor any other openings for ventilationinstallations or for any other purpose (Zyklon introduction holes); oth-erwise such old openings would have been used for this purpose, or their filling would have been mentioned.

Direct access to the air raid shelters, which evolved from the mul-tiple division of the morgue/‘gas chamber’, was possible through anewly added entrance with sluice, which today is represented as the

entryway taken by the victims, although the ‘gas chamber’ had no en-trance in that location—as a matter of fact, it had no direct entrancefrom the outside at all.163 Toilets were likewise built into the former washroom at this time.

Fig. 23 shows the ground plan of the crematorium in its presentcondition.168 According to Pressac, the access from the morgue/‘gaschamber’ to the present cremation room was newly placed after thewar—not quite at the original location. The partitions in the air-raid

shelter, including the wall to the washroom, which was, however,never part of the morgue (the later ‘gas chamber’), were torn down.Accordingly, the irritated visitor sees two discharge pipes from twotoilets inside the alleged ‘gas chamber’. According to Pressac, whogives no source for this statement, the roof was newly covered withtarpaper during which the traces of the Zyklon B holes and ventilationholes of the ‘gas chamber’ were allegedly covered over. The renewedincorporation of four staggered Zyklon B introduction stacks by thePolish Museum after the war is therefore not alleged to have taken place in the same location. This argument, on Pressac’s part, mustcause astonishment, since from the inside, the roof/ceiling is of unplas-tered bare concrete. It should have been quite possible to determine thelocation of the original openings—now allegedly sealed—from theinterior and it would also have been quite possible to make openings inthe same place.

As confirmed to visitors by the Museum administration upon in-quiry, the two chimney openings in the cremation room, as well as the

168 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 159.




84

chimney itself, which is without any functional connection outside the building, were built after the war as a “reconstruction for Museum purposes” on the location of the alleged original installations.169

The French journalist and well-known anti-revisionist, Eric Co-nan, writes:170

“Another delicate subject: What to do with the falsifications left behind by the communist administration? In the 50s and 60s, several buildings which had disappeared or had been misappropriated were re-built with gross errors and displayed as authentic. Some, which were‘too new’, have been closed for the public. Not to mention the delousing

gas chambers which were sometimes presented as homicidal gas cham-bers. Those aberrations have helped the deniers a lot, which took the es-

sence for their legends out of it. The example of the Crematory I is typi-cal. In its morgue, the first gas chamber was installed. It operated for a

short period of time in early 1942. The blocking of this area, which wasessential for the gassings, disturbed the operation of the camp. End of

April 1942, it was therefore decided to move the deadly gassings to Birk-enau, were it was conducted on an industrial scale mainly with Jewishvictims. The Crematory I was subsequently converted into an air raid

shelter with a surgery room. In 1948, when the Museum was created,Crematory I was reconstructed in a supposed original state . Everything

in it is false:[171] the dimensions of the gas chamber, the locations of thedoors, the openings for pouring in Zyklon B, the ovens, rebuilt according to the recollections of some survivors, the height of the chimney. At theend of the 70s, Robert Faurisson exploited those falsifications all thebetter because at that time the Museum officials balked at admitting

169 Ibid., p. 133; see also the confirmation of changes in the partial recreation of the installation inthe letter from the Auschwitz State Museum to Joel P. Hayward, ref. I-8523/26/2120/ 91,dated May 7, 1991; B. Bailer-Galanda, Informationen der Gesellschaft für politische Aufk-

lärung , Innsbruck, June 1991, no. 29, p. 1, relating to Leuchter’s statement relating to crema-torium I: “Er verwechselt museale Rekonstruktionen der Gaskammern, die dem Betrachter einen Eindruck der damaligen Geschehnisse vermitteln sollen, mit real funktionierendenGaskammern.”(He confuses a museum reconstruction of the gas chambers, intended to pro-vide the observer with the impression of the events at that time, with authentically functioninggas chambers.); Letter from Dr. Scheel, Bonn, German Foreign Office, Jan. 8, 1979, ref. 214-E-Stuparek: “ Auch mir ist bekannt, daß es im Lager Auschwitz keine Gaskammern gegebenhat. Die Gaskammern befanden sich im ca. 3 km davon entfernten KZ Auschwitz-Birkenau.” (Iknow as well that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz camp. The gas chambers were lo-cated in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, located approximately 3 km away.)

170 “ Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal ”, L’Express, 19.-25. January 1995; see also, in this regard,

Robert Faurisson’s remarks: “Sur Auschwitz, lentement, la vérité reprend ses droits” (Thetruth about Auschwitz is slowing reclaiming its rights), Feb. 4, 1995 (online:abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archFaur/RF950204.html).

171 In the original: “Tout y est faux: […]”



5. AUSCHWITZ

85

them.[172] An American revisionist [88] has shot a video in the gas chamber, still presented as authentic: one may see him questioning the visitorswith his ‘revelations’. […] For the moment, things remain as they are,and the visitors are not told anything . This is too complicated. One shall

see later what to do.” (Emphases added.)

According to the inflection: they were lying, they are lying, theywill be lying…

In view of this unrealistic ‘reconstructions’ carried out after thewar, the Jewish-American professor of architecture Robert van Pelt,who actually is only a professor for cultural history, in co-operationwith the Jewish-Canadian Holocaust historian Deborah Dwork, arrivesat the following, no less unequivocal conclusions:173

“The architecture designed to enact the metamorphosis fromMensch to Untermensch was intact when the Soviets liberated the campin 1945. All traces of it were removed subsequently. The guidebook for

sale in the bookstore does not mention the building [crematorium I] at all. Perhaps the men and women who created the museum could not rec-oncile its implications with their ideology of a resistance: an ideologythat denied total victimization. Perhaps it was simply a question of re-

sources and the need for tourist services. Whether for doctrinal or prac-

tical reasons, the destruction of the original arrangement within the present visitor reception center is a postwar obfuscation and a loss.

There have been additions to the camp the Russians found in 1945as well as deletions, and the suppression of the prisoner reception site ismatched by the reconstruction of crematorium I just outside the north-east perimeter of the present museum camp. With its chimney and its gaschamber, the crematorium functions as the solemn conclusion for toursthrough the camp. Visitors are not told that the crematorium they see islargely a postwar reconstruction.

When Auschwitz was transformed into a museum after the war, thedecision was taken to concentrate the history of the whole complex intoone of its component parts. The infamous crematoria where the massmurders had taken place lay in ruins in Birkenau, two miles away. Thecommittee felt that a crematorium was required at the end of the memo-rial journey, and crematorium I was reconstructed to speak for the his-tory of the incinerators at Birkenau. This program usurpation was rather detailed. A chimney, the ultimate symbol of Birkenau, was re-created;

172 See Serge Thion (ed.), op. cit. (note 33), pp. 316f.; R. Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers…”, op.cit. (note 35), p. 335.

173 Op. cit. (note 92), pp. 363f.




86

four hatched openings in the roof, as if for pouring Zyklon B into the gaschamber below, were installed, and two of the three furnaces were re-built using original parts. There are no signs to explain these restitu-tions, they were not marked at the time, and the guides remain silent about it when they take visitors through this building that is presumed bythe tourist to be the place where it happened.”

This argument of the “usurpation” is packed with dynamite, be-

cause it suggests that the events alleged to have taken place in cremato-rium I, events described by eyewitnesses Rudolf Höß, Pery Broad anda few others actually never took place at this location. But this under-mines the credibility of all other eyewitnesses from the very outset,including those from Birkenau. We wonder if the authors are aware of this?

It may at least be stated without fear of contradiction that the ceil-ing, exterior walls and pillars as well as the foundation of the building

are in their original condition. If Zyklon B introduction stacks and ven-tilation openings had existed in the reinforced concrete roof, breaks inthe reinforced concrete structure would be visible from the interior inthe corresponding places, since these cannot have been made to disappear without leaving visible traces. In addition to today’s Zyklon Bintroduction stacks there are, however, no indications of any former openings in the roof. The holes allegedly made in another locationtherefore never existed!

The openings in the concrete visible today are neither plastered,nor have the remains of the cut steel reinforcement rods been removedin a professional manner. The holes have been planked with wood and

Figs. 24 and 25: Symptoms of decay visible on the interior ceiling of themorgue of crematorium I in Auschwitz Main Camp. After more than 50 years, the rusting of the steel reinforcement rods near the surface hasbegun cracking the concrete. The provisional attempts of the Museum

administration to plaster these holes (right) will prove useless.



5. AUSCHWITZ

87

sealed with tar. Such poor workmanship reflects neither the care re-quired in handling a poisonous gas, nor standard German craftsman-ship.

If the SS had put these holes in the concrete during the war, onemust assume that they would have taken care to evenly distributedthese holes in the ceiling of the original(!) morgue in order to ensure aneven distribution of the Zyklon B inside the room. The stacks today,however, are only evenly distributed in the ceiling of this room if oneconsiders the washing room, which was only incorporated after thewar(!), as an integral part of the morgue (‘gas chamber’.) (See Figs. 21and 23). Thus, the arrangement of today’s introduction holes onlymake sense if they were created especially for its present status as afalsely dimensioned “reconstruction for Museum purposes” (B. Bailer-Galanda)169 after the war. This by itself is strong circumstantial evi-dence that those holes were chiseled in after the interior walls of theformer air raid shelter—one too many of them—had been torn down by the Soviets or the Poles. This is also supported by the fact that it has been generally assumed until the present day—without contradiction by any side—that the introduction holes visible today were indeed cre-ated after the war without recourse to the alleged remains of old,

walled-up holes.174 The flat roof of the crematorium, like all flat roofs, is not water-

tight. Due to decades of erosion by rain water and the steel reinforce-ment rods, lying near the surface, rusting over time and splitting theconcrete,175 the interior of the room exhibits clear signs of decay; seeFigs. 24f. The Museum administration has, of course, attempted to plaster these places, but the plaster is immediately destroyed by thecrumbling of rust from the steel reinforcement rods. Janitors from the

Museum are compelled to sweep away falling pieces of crumblingmortar and concrete. It would be entirely incorrect to explain thesesigns of deterioration as the remains of former introduction holes

174 See, in this regard, the interview with D. Cole, op. cit. (note 88).175 Steel reinforcement rods in concrete are only practicable when the iron is deeply embedded in

the concrete and therefore protected for decades against corrosion by the very durable alkalineenvironment of the concrete, since concrete is only slowly carbonated by the carbon dioxide(CO2) in the environment, resulting in a neutralization of its pH value. The reinforcement rods

in the ceiling of the morgue in question lie directly on the surface, where the pH value wouldfall very quickly (i.e., would become less alkaline), particularly when rain water containingCO2 penetrated the concrete; see the crack in Fig. 25 which would quickly allow the entry of rain water.




88

through the roof. Such a claim is refuted by four facts:1. The steel reinforcement rods would have had to have been re-

moved during the opening of any holes.

2. A border between the old concrete of the ceiling and the fillingmaterial added later would also be visible. The corrosion locationsall indicate a homogenous structure of the concrete.

3. These locations would have to be evenly distributed over the ceil-ing of the original morgue.

4. These locations would have to exhibit an even, regular form(round, square or rectangular).Based on all these arguments, it can be concluded with certainty

that at the time of the alleged use of this rooms as a ‘gas chamber’,there were no openings for the introduction of Zyklon B. There is noindication of a former device to ventilate the room either. Furthermore,there was no direct access to the ‘gas chamber’ from the outside. Thevictims would have had to enter through the corpse room (laying outroom), or through the oven room. They would, therefore, have had tofile past the corpses of their already-murdered companions in misery— truly a macabre spectacle. There could be no successful deception of the victims and camouflage nor could there be any hope of willing co-

operation or acquiescence on the part of the inmates under such cir-cumstances. Or, to put the lack of direct access doors to the ‘gas chamber’ in Robert Faurisson’s words:

“ No doors, no destruction.”

5.4. ‘Gas Chambers’ in Birkenau Camp

5.4.1. Crematoria II and III5.4.1.1. Starting Situation

These crematoria are entirely comparable in size, equipment, andmanner of construction to other similar installations built in the ThirdReich at that time, as well as with those built today.176 In this connec- 176 The present writer has before him a sketch of the ground plan of the crematorium, built in

1939, in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, which is similar in design and dimensions

with crematoria II and III at Auschwitz, yet no mass murders are alleged to have occurred atSachsenhausen. Reference should also be made to the construction design of modern cremato-ria: H.-K. Boehlke, Friedhofsbauten, Callwey Verlag, Munich 1974, in particular, the crema-torium diagram on p. 117, including a doctor’s office; E. Neufert, Bauentwurfslehre, Ullstein



5. AUSCHWITZ

89

tion, reference is made to the trial of the builder of the cremation in-stallations in Birkenau camp. In 1972, the court acquitted the two de-fendants, master builder W. Dejaco and master builder F. Ertl, since

suspicion of aiding and abetting in mass murder could not be corrobo-rated.177 An expert report drawn up during this trial on the surviving plans and documents on the construction of the crematoria led to theconclusion that these buildings could not have been used or modifiedso as to serve as instruments of mass murder.85 In an eyewitness state-ment made recently, one of the master builders at Auschwitz, Walter Schreiber, stated as follows on the planning of these crematoria:178

Question: In which positions were you active?Answer: As supervising engineer, I inspected the Huta Corpora-

tion and dealt with the Zentralbauleitung of the SS. I also au-dited the invoices of our firm.

Q.: Did you enter the camp? How did that happen?A.:Yes. One could walk everywhere without hindrance on the

streets of the camp and was only stopped by the guards uponentering and leaving the camp.

Q.:Did you see or hear anything about killings or mistreatment of inmates?

A.:No. But lines of inmates in a relatively poor general conditioncould be seen on the streets of the camp.

Q.:What did the Corporation build?A.:Among other things, crematoria II and III with the large

morgues.Q.:The prevalent opinion is that these large morgues were gas

chambers for mass killings.A.:Nothing of the sort could be deduced from the plans made

available to us. The detailed plans and provisional invoicesdrawn up by us refer to these rooms as ordinary cellars.Q.:Do you know anything about introduction hatches in the rein-

forced concrete ceilings?A.:No, nothing more from memory. But since these cellars were

Fachverlag, Frankfurt 1962, pp. 423f.177 Proceedings against master builders W. Dejaco and F. Ertl (note 84).178

Schreiber was the Supervising Engineer at the Kattowitz agency of the Huta corporation,which built the crematoria at Birkenau. See also Werner Rademacher, “ In memoriam Dipl.- Ing. Dr. techn. Walter Schreiber ”, VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 104f. (online:www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Rademacher104f.html). He died in 1999.




90

also intended to serve the auxiliary purpose of air raid shelters,introduction holes would have been counter-productive. I would certainly have expressed an objection to such an arrangement.

Q.:Why were such large cellars built, when the water table in Birkenau was so extremely high?A.:I don’t know. Originally, however, above-ground morgues were

to be built. The construction of the cellars caused great prob-lems in retention and sealing.

Q.:Would it be conceivable that you were deceived and that the SS nevertheless had gas chambers to be built by your firm without

your knowledge?A.:Anyone who knows anything about what happens on a building

site knows that that is impossible.Q.: Do you know any gas chambers?A.:Naturally. Everyone in the east knew about disinfection cham-

bers. We also built disinfection chambers, which look quite different. We built such installations and knew what they looked like, even after the necessary installations. As a building firm,we often had work to do after installation of the machinery...

Q.:When did you learn that your firm was supposed to have built

gas chambers for industrial mass killing?A.:Only after the end of the war.Q.:Weren’t you quite amazed about it?A.:Yes! After the war I made contact with my former boss in Ger-

many and asked him about it.Q.:What did you learn?A.:He also only learned about it after the war, but he assured me

that the Huta Corporation certainly did not build the cellars in

question as gas chambers.Q.:Would building alterations be conceivable after the withdrawal of the Huta Corporation?

A.: Conceivable, sure, but I would rule that out on the basis of time factors. After all, they would have needed corporations again,the SS couldn’t do that on their own, even with inmates. Based on the technical requirements for the operation of a gas cham-ber, which only became known to me later, the building erected

by us would have been entirely unsuited for the purpose in regard to the necessary machinery and practicable operation.Q.:Why didn’t you publish that?



5. AUSCHWITZ

91

A.:After the war, first, I had other problems. And now it is nolonger permitted.

Q.:Have you been interrogated as a witness in this matter?

A.:No Allied, German, or Austrian agency has ever taken an inter-est in my knowledge of the construction of crematoria II and III, I or my other activity in the former general government. I wasnever interrogated in this matter, although my services for the

Huta Corporation were known. I mentioned them in all my later CVs and recruitment applications. Since knowledge of the factsis dangerous, however, I never felt any urge to disseminate it.

But now, when the lies are getting increasingly bolder and con-temporary witnesses like myself are slowly but surely dying off,

I am glad that someone is willing to listen and set down the wayit really was. I have serious heart trouble and can die at anymoment, it’s time now.

Prof. van Pelt has stated as follows on crematorium II:179

“Auschwitz is like the Holy of Holies. I’ve prepared for years to gothere. And to have a fool [Leuchter] come in, coming completely unpre-

pared, it’s sacrilege! Somebody who walks into the Holy of Holies and doesn’t give a damn.” [00:44:30]

“Crematorium II is the most [word indistinct: notorious?] of Ausch-witz. In the twenty-five hundred square feet of this one room more peoplelost their lives than in any other place on this planet. Five hundred thou-

sand people were killed. If you would draw a map of human suffering, if you create a geography of atrocities, this would be the absolute center.”[01:00:00]

“If the Holocaust revisionists would be shown to be right we would

lose our sense about the Second World War, we would lose our senseabout what democracy was. The Second World War was a moral war; it was a war between good and evil. And so if we take the core of this war,which is in fact Auschwitz, out of the picture, then everything else be-comes unintelligible to us. We collectively end up in a madhouse.”[01:23:30]

We will not allow ourselves to be distracted by the notion thatProf. van Pelt considers internment in a madhouse the only alternative

179 Van Pelt’s testimony in Errol Morris’ documentary movie Mr Death, op. cit. (note 9), timegiven in [min:sec:frame].




92

to believe in the Holocaust. Van Pelt’s testimony does, however, emphasize the importance of crematorium II (and crematorium III, builtas a mirror image of crematorium II, although allegedly not used quiteso intensively), which will be discussed in the following.

A special, separate morgue with better ventilation was then used,as is usual today, as a laying out room for the victims of possible epi-

Fig. 27: Cross-section of morgue 1 (alleged ‘gas

chamber’) of crematoria II and III (mirror symmetrical) in Auschwitz II/Birkenau camp.180

1: Ventilation outlet

2: Ventilation inlet

3: soil

Fig. 26: Ground plan of morgue 1 (alleged ‘gas chamber’) of Crematoria II and III (mir-ror symmetrical) in Auschwitz II/ Birkenau camp.

180

a: Morgue 1/ ‘gas chamber’, 30×7×2,41 mb: Morgue II/Undressing room, 49,5×7,9×2,3 m

c: rooms resulting from partition of of former morgue 3

d: Corpse lift to the oven room on ground floor

e: Ventilation outlet channel

f: Concrete pillars

g: Concrete beam

h: Cellar entrace built later

1-3: Sample taking locations of Samples 1-3



5. AUSCHWITZ

93

demics. This cellar is designated as an “ Infektionsleichenkeller ” (infec-tion corpse morgue) in the technical literature. Fig. 26 is the ground plan of morgue 1 (alleged ‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II, which

was designed mirror symmetrically to crematorium III. Fig. 27 showsthe cross section through morgue 1.180 As may be seen from the cross-section, these morgues, for the most part, are located below ground.The long and slender type of construction, the underground location, aswell as the lack of contact with the cremation rooms result in an even,cool temperature in these areas. This corresponds to their having been planned as morgues, which is how they are designated in the building plans.

The planning of such large cellars is not astonishing, furthermore,when one considers that several hundred corpses a day had arrived dur-ing the worst periods of the epidemics raging in Auschwitz, and thatthese corpses had to be stored somewhere. The compelling interpreta-tion of the non-criminal planning of these rooms as harmless morguesis shared even by Pressac.

The documentation reproduced by Pressac shows that this installa-tion was derived from an earlier 1941 plan for a new crematorium inthe main camp.181 The access street to the crematoria in Birkenau was

located on the side of the chimney wing (see Fig. 29). The original plan for the main camp, however, provided for an access street on theother side of the building. Moreover, the high water table of the terrainin Birkenau did not permit location of the morgue quite under ground.182 The cellars were therefore raised so as not to swim on top of the ground water. Together with the layer of earth on top of the cellars,these were insurmountable for vehicles and carts. Direct access to thecellars from the outside was therefore blocked. For this reason, an ad-

ditional flight of stairs was incorporated to the offices of morgue 3 aswell as a flight of stairs at the end of morgue 2 (see Fig. 29).

Possibly as a result of the dramatically altered military situationafter the German defeat of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43, all con-struction plans were reduced in costs and required manpower wherever

180 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 319-329. Plans for crematoria II and III.181 Ibid., p. 183, on the non-criminal planning of crematoria II and III, see, in particular, p. 264.182

See also Michael Gärtner, Werner Rademacher, “Grundwasser im Gelände des KGL Birkenau(Auschwitz)”, VffG 2(1) (1998), pp. 2-12 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1998/1/GaeRad1.html);Engl.: “Ground Water in the Area of the POW camp Birkenau”, The Revisionist , 1(1) (2003),

pp. 3-12 (www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/GaertnerRademacher3-12.html).




94

possible. Hence, the new stairways did not have corpse chutes as theold stairway. Several other cost-reducing changes were made on cre-matorium III.183 Defects in the quality of the cheap material used for

crematoria IV and V must have led to their early breakdown (see nextchapter).The original basement stairways with corpse chutes of crematoria

II and III had already been finished by then, although they could only be accessed with difficulty. That these stairs were built at all, indicatesan over-hasty transmission of the old plans for the main camp to thenew situation in Birkenau.

The walls of the morgue consist of double brick masonry with alayer of tar in between for insulation.183 The interior walls are plasteredwith a hard, cement-rich material, the ceiling and support pillars of reinforced concrete show the marks of wooden planking and are there-fore not plastered. The roof, made of reinforced concrete, is isolated bya layer of tar, which is protected from environmental and mechanicaldamage by a rather thin layer of cement covering it. The layers of tar both on top of the roof as well as between the two brick walls was in-dispensable as a water barrier due to the high ground water in theswampy region of Birkenau. Both morgues had several drains.

5.4.1.2. The Obsessive Search for “Criminal Traces”Jean-Claude Pressac was the first researcher to dig through the

mountains of documentation at the Auschwitz Museum and later through the documentation of the Zentralbauleitung stored in Moscow.He was also the first one to create the now-widely used term “criminal trace”. Based on the total absence of documents proving the erectionof homicidal ‘gas chambers’, Pressac resorted to a semantic trick by

attributing a criminal significance to harmless documents, which weresaid to constitute a clue that something was not quite right about thecrematoria at Auschwitz. Based on the progress in research, however,all these ‘criminal traces’ compiled by Pressac and others and accompanied by sometimes fantastic cerebral acrobatics have collapsed. Themost notable of them are listed and briefly refuted in the following.

183 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 187, costs and survey of construction design of crematoriaII and III.



5. AUSCHWITZ

95

5.4.1.2.1. New Cellars StairwaysFact 1: Additional access ways via stairways from the outside

were later incorporated into the cellars of crematoria II and III.Incorrect additional allegation: The corpse chute at the old, origi-

nal stairway entrance was demolished.184 Incorrect conclusion: The construction of new stairways without

corpse chutes with the simultaneous demolition in the original stairwayaccess way could mean only one thing: no more corpses were to gosliding into the cellars but rather people who were still able to walk down a few steps. Hence they had to be alive while entering, and werekilled after they had entered the building.185

Correct conclusion: The new stairways were necessary based on

the alteration in the plans, see the chapter above. This is supported bythe heading of the plan for the new stairways: “Change of cellar accessto street side”.186 The corpse chute, furthermore, was not even demol-ished. In fact, it appears in all following plans as shown by Carlo Mat-togno:187

184 Judgment of Judge Gray, D. Irving vs. D.E. Lipstadt, op. cit. (note 66), §7.61, 13.76, 13.84.185 On Gray, see preceding footnote; J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 213, 218.186

J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 183f., 302f.; with regards to the original plans by Walter Dejaco, see J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 90), Document 9.187 The following list was taken from Carlo Mattogno’s “ Architektonische Stümpereien…”, op.

cit. (note 92), p. 29.

Fig. 28: Schematic location of thenew crematorium as originally

planned for the Auschwitz maincamp.

Fig. 29: Schematic location of crematorium II, altered plan. To

adjust it to the higher location of themorgue and the access in Birkenaufrom the other side (mirroring

crematorium III).




96

“– Plan 2136 of the Zentralbauleitung of 22 February 1943 for crematorium III;188

– Plan 2197 of the Zentralbauleitung of 18 March 1943 for crema-torium II;189

– Plan 109/15 of the firm Huta of 24 September 1943 for cremato-ria II and III;190

– Plan 109/16A of the firm Huta of 9 October 1943 for crematoria II and III.191

Moreover, the ‘chute’ is mentioned as existing in ordinances 200and 204 of the Zentralbauleitung to the Häftlingsschlosserei of 18 March1943 respecting crematorium II.192“

Furthermore, crematoria II and III were undoubtedly used during

their entire period of operation for the temporary storage of the bodiesof persons having died of ‘natural’ causes (epidemics, exhaustion, age,etc.), awaiting cremation, which amounted at least to thousands of bod-ies. If it were true that stairways without chutes could only be used byliving persons still capable of climbing stairs on their own, then onemight be permitted to ask: how did the corpses of persons having diedof ‘natural causes’ get into the morgue (or wherever they were stored)?Did they walk by themselves? Of course not. They were carried, and

sometimes certainly even a few steps up and down—and not only in-side the crematorium. Was it therefore impossible to get corpses into a building not having a chute? Certainly not. Would missing chutestherefore prove that only living people could enter? Of course not. Sowhy did the SS not build a new corpse chute by the new stairway?Perhaps simply because the costs of the crematorium were running outof control due to the constant changes in plans, and because it was de-sired or necessary to keep the costs down? Would that not be a much

simpler and more logical explanation?

5.4.1.2.2. Gassing Cellar, Undressing Room, and ShowersFact 1: There are documents of SS Zentralbauleitung which men-

tion an “ Auskleidekeller ” (undressing room) in crematorium II.193

188 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 305.189 Ibid., p. 307.190

Ibid., p. 327.191 Ibid., p. 328.192 The Trial of Höß, volume 11a, p. 88.193 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 433ff.



5. AUSCHWITZ

97

Fact 2: There is a document which mentions a “Vergasungskeller ”(gassing cellar,) in crematorium II.194

Fact 3: There is a document which lists “14 Brausen” (14

showers) for crematorium III.195

Fact 4: Pieces of wooden planking left in the underside of the ceil-ing of morgue 1 in crematorium II are visible even today.196

Incorrect conclusion: Morgue 1 of crematoria II & III was built ashomicidal ‘gas chamber’, equipped with “ false” shower heads, whichwere fastened to the pieces of wood left in the concrete and used todeceive the victims; morgue 2 was used as the undressing room for thevictims.197

Correct conclusion: It is not known which room is being referredto by means of the term “Vergasungskeller ” in the above mentioneddocument. Since there were still no proper means to drill holes in con-crete ceilings and no neat plastic rawl plugs in the 1940s, there wasonly one way to fasten installations to bare concrete walls: conical pieces of wood were cast in the concrete onto which the electricallines, water pipes, and other installations were screwed tightly. Theexistence of such pieces of wood in the ceiling of morgue 1 does not prove that shower heads were fastened there. It is more probable that

lamps or electrical lines were fastened there. Nor is there any proof that the “ showers” mentioned in the document were “ false”, as stated by Pressac. In actual fact, the Zentralbauleitung temporarilyconsidered expanding the Birkenau crematoria into hygiene centersequipped with disinfestation installations, inmate showers and un-dressing rooms but nevertheless later abandoned these plans. CarloMattogno has produced extensive documentation in support of thisargument:198 “Now in an ‘Aufstellung’ (itemization) by the Topf company dated

13 April, 1943, concerning requested metals to be used in the construc-tion of certain machinery for crematorium II at Auschwitz, the following

194 Ibid., p. 432.195 Ibid., p. 430.196 Ibid., p. 488.197 See also four Pressac footnotes above; see also Gray, judgment, op. cit. (note 66), §13.69,

13.82.198

C. Mattogno, “ Leichenkeller von Birkenau: Luftschutzräume oder Entwesungskammern?”VffG 4(2) (2000), pp. 152-158 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/2000/2/Mattogno152-158.html);Engl.: “Morgue Cellars of Birkenau: Gas Shelters or Disinfesting Chambers?” (online:http://www.codoh.com/granata/leichen.html).




98

piece of information appears:[199]

‘2 Topf disinfestation heaters for crematorium II in the prisoner of war camp Auschwitz.’

On 14 May, Bischoff sent Topf the following ‘urgent telegram’:[200]

‘On Monday bring the overdue warm water project for approximately 100 showers. Installation of water heater or boiler inthe still under construction trash incinerator crematorium III or fluefor the purpose of utilizing the high emission temperature. Contin-gently higher walling of the oven for the purpose of accommodatinga large reserve container is possible. It is being requested to sendalong the appropriate designs with Herrn Prüfer on Monday, May

17.’On June 5, 1942, Topf sent Drawing D60446 to the Zentralbaulei-

tung ‘regarding the installation of the boilers in the rubbish incinerator’.This project involved the installations intended for crematorium II.[201]

In an undated ‘questionnaire’ apparently written in June 1943 regarding the Birkenau crematoria, in answer to the question, ‘Are the ex-haust gases utilized?’, the head of the Zentralbauleitung, Bischoff, re-

sponded: ‘planned but not carried out’, and in response to the following question: ‘If yes, to what purpose?’, Bischoff answered: ‘for bath facili-ties in crematorium II and III’.[202]

Finally, there is an invoice from the firm VEDAG Vereinigte Dach- pappen-Fabriken Aktiengesellschaft (United Roofing-Felt Factories, In-corporated) dated July 28, 1943, with the subject ‘Auschwitz-crematorium’ referring to ‘completed sealing work for the disinfestation

facility’ (emphasis added) which was carried out between May 21 and July 16, 1943, cf. Fig. 30.[203]

Before drawing any conclusions, a few explanations are required.

While both Topf disinfestation heaters were then installed in the Zentral- sauna, the document cited above refers them to crematorium II. The project for the installation of 100 showers in crematorium III (and in crema-torium II) could not have been for the prisoners of the ‘Sonderkom-mando’ of the crematoria, since only 50 showers were installed in the

shower room of the Zentralsauna, which had been designed for the in-

199 Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu (hereafter APMO), BW 30/34, p. 47.200

APMO, BW 30/34, p. 40.201 TCIDK , 502-1-336 (page number illegible).202 TCIDK , 502-1-312, p. 8.203 TCIDK , 502-1-316, p. 431, “ Zweitschrift ” in 502-1-323, p. 137.



5. AUSCHWITZ

99

mates of the entire camp;[204] therefore it is clear that the ‘bath facilitiesin crematorium II and III’ in the ‘questionnaire’ quoted above, were in-tended for the prisoners of the entire camp as well. This means that it was planned to convert the crematoria II and III into hygienic centers.

The purpose of such centers was to cleanse the inmates and their clothing, i.e., to free them from dirt and disease-carrying parasites. But this necessarily included a disinfection or disinfestation installation. Theexpansion of the crematoria was not however completed because work had already begun in the meantime on the central sauna which was bet-ter suited for this purpose. The documents cited here nevertheless provea temporary intent on the part of the Zentralbauleitung to perform cre-mation, inmate cleaning and the disinfestation of clothing in the same

building. Now I think that it is not irrelevant to note here that in this project

the water heating system for the showers was connected to the garbageincinerator and not to the crematorium oven, as for example in the five-muffle oven of the Lublin KL. In my opinion, the reason for that decisionwas the fact that the crematorium ovens did not ensure a continuity of use to be able to provide sufficient hot water throughout the entire day;in other words, the crematorium ovens were not used enough to ensureefficient operation of the water heating system.

That the VEDAG-Invoice[203] indeed refers to the hot-air disinfesting chambers installed in the Zentralsauna, is definitely proven by a VEDAG

single invoice which has the same date and the same contents as the first invoice noted above, but it refers to the ‘BW 32 = disinfestation facility’,that is to say, precisely in the Zentralsauna. [cf. Fig. 31,205] But for what reason does the invoice have as its subject: ‘Auschwitz-crematorium’?This heading has an obvious relationship to the aforesaid Topf ‘itemiza-tion’ of April 13, 1943, concerning ‘2 Topf disinfestation heaters for Crema II’ which were then installed in the Zentralsauna. In any case, thetwo documents establish the correlation crematorium–disinfestation and

portray the expression of a plan or at least of a Zentralbauleitung inten-tion to combine cremation and disinfestation within the same edifice.”

Since, as shown in chapter 5.2.2., the installation of hygiene cen-ters with showers, disinfestation, undressing and dressing rooms andadjacent crematoria is not at all unusual, the “traces” adduced by Pres-sac and van Pelt may be seen to have been incorrectly interpreted.

204 Inventory of the delivery negotiations relating to the “ Desinfektions- und Entwesunsanlage”(Zentralsauna) of 22. January 1944. TCIDK , 502-1-335, p. 3.

205 TCIDK , 502-1-316, S. 430.




100

Fig. 30: “Re.: Auschwitz crematorium […] Caulking work performed for the

disinfestation installation”TCIDK, 502-1-316, p. 431, “Zweitschrift” in 502-1-323, p. 137.



5. AUSCHWITZ

101

Fig. 31: “ Re: BW: 32 = Disinfestation installation […] Caulking work performed for the disinfestation installation” TCIDK, 502-1-316, p. 430.




102

Fig. 32: “2 Topf disinfestation ovens for crematorium II in the Prisoner of

War Camp, Auschwitz.” Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu,

BW 30/34, p. 47.



5. AUSCHWITZ

103

5.4.1.2.3. “Gas-tight Doors” for Crematorium II

Fact 1: Morgue 1 in crematorium II was equipped with gas-tightdoors with a peephole.206

Fact 2: An initially planned double door opening to the inside of morgue 1 was replaced by a double door open-ing to the outside.207

Incorrect conclu-sion 1: Morgue 1 in

crematorium II wasconverted into a homi-cidal ‘gas chamber’,equipped with gas-tightdoors.208

Incorrect conclu-sion 2: Doors openingto the inside of morgue1 would have been blocked by gassing vic-tims piling up in frontof it so that the doorscould not have beenopened. Realizing this,the SS changed thedoors to open to theoutside.

Correct conclu-sions 1: Even if a peep-hole was not entirelynecessary for a disin-festation chamber, ithas nevertheless been proved that the disin-

206 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 434-436.207 Ibid., pp. 285, 302.208 See also Pressac footnote above; see also Gray, judgment, op. cit. (note 66), §13.84.

Fig. 33: Wooden disinfestation chamber door at Auschwitz, rendered provisionally gas-tight with peephole and metal protection grid. Thisis what the gas-tight doors for the homicidal ‘gas chambers’ are supposed to have looked

like. Note the extremely flimsy lock.




104

festation chamber doors installed in Auschwitz were also equippedwith exactly such peepholes, as shown in the photograph reproducedhere (Fig. 33).209 One document indicates that gas-tight doors measur-ing 100 cm × 192 cm were ordered for morgue 1 (the ‘gas chamber’)of crematoria II and III.210

On the delivery plan, i.e., the final plan for crematorium II, thesize of the doors is nevertheless drawn in as 190 cm × 200 cm, as onall previous plans, so that these gas-tight doors would not have fit-

209 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 49.210 Ibid., p. 436. In the inventory list on p. 430, a handwritten entry mentioning a gas-tight door

only appears in crematorium II.

Gas caulking

Upper door bolt

Outer peephole, withprotective grid

Door handle

Lower door bolt

Reinforced frames (steel in concrete) Fig. 34: German air-raid shelter door from 1939 in the cellar of a private

house in Karlsruhe © Photo: R. Faurisson, 1991

Peephole fromthe outside



5. AUSCHWITZ

105

ted.211 Based on the ruins, it must be possible even today, to establishwhether the door was possibly walled in to make it narrower andwhether there are any traces of door frames. Excavations would be

necessary to determine this.The engineers Nowak and Rademacher have shown that the ‘gas-tight’ doors manufactured at Auschwitz by inmates from wooden planks could not have been gas-tight in a technical sense, the planksdid not close hermetically, the fittings were simply fastened throughthe wood by means of bolts, and the seals consisted of felt strips.212

One has to consider that a hypothetical homicidal ‘gas chamber’door would have to open outwards—a door opening inwards would be blocked by inmate bodies lying in front of the door. Such doors wouldrequire an especially stable arrangement as the locks and hinges wouldhave to be capable of resisting the pressure of hundreds of panicking people. The pressure exerted by such masses of people becomes appar-ent when one recalls the photographs of panicky spectators at foot- ball/soccer matches. Separating fences and partitions between individ-ual spectator blocks are commonly trampled down like mere blades of grass in such situations. In any case, a simple wooden door, rendered provisionally gas-tight, as has been found in Auschwitz, a photograph

of which is reproduced by Pressac in his book (see Fig. 33),213 couldnever have resisted such pressure.

The camp administration could actually have ordered solid, tech-nically gas-tight steel doors (air-raid shelter doors, Fig. 34) since theywere offered such doors but it can be proven that they did not order them. One must assume that they had no serious need for them.212

In this context, a comparison of the flimsy wooden doors as foundin Auschwitz (used for delousing purposes only) with technically gas

tight, massive iron doors as used for executions in U.S. homicidal gaschambers is revealing, compare Fig. 33 with Fig. 5 (page 24).

The installation of a door with felt seals in crematorium II mayhave been temporarily considered either in connection with the tempo-rarily considered expansion into a hygiene center or because it was

211 Ibid., pp. 227, 311, 312.212 H.J. Nowak, W. Rademacher, “‘Gasdichte’ Türen in Auschwitz”, VffG 2(4) (1998), pp. 248-

261 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1998/4/NowRad4.html); Engl.: “‘Gas-Tight’ Doors in Au- schwitz”, in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 43), pp. 324-336 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndNowak.html).

213 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 46-49, 425-428, 486, 500.




106

desired to use the only solid reinforced concrete cellar in Birkenaucamp as an air-raid shelter, as remarked by senior engineer Schreiber.This cellar was actually used as an air-raid shelter for inmates as sug-

gested by a few eyewitness testimonies.214

This would also explainother more minor ‘traces’ which cannot be discussed here. SamuelCrowell has shown in several articles the extent to which the SS actu-ally built air-raid shelter installations not only for themselves but alsofor the camp inmates.215

Correct conclusions 2: The change in orientation of the doors was probably caused by the design of this morgue’s ventilation system.Since the air inlet of this system had a higher resistance than the outlet(see next chapter), a considerable subpressure was caused in morgue 1,constantly sucking air in from the rest of the building. This is a desiredeffect for a morgue where many corpses had to be stored, so that unpleasant smells would not reach other parts of the building. A doubledoor opening to the side with a lower pressure (inside morgue 1)would open automatically, whereas a door opening to the side of higher pressure closes automatically.

214 Miklos Nyiszli’s book Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account , Arcade Publishing, NewYork 1993, alleges, on p. 128, that the inmates took refuge in the gas chamber during air raids.Martin Gilbert’s Auschwitz and the Allies (Henry Holt & Co., New York 1981), p. 309, con-tains the testimony of a female survivor, according to which she, together with many other female arriving inmates, was led to a darkened room to remain there during an air raid. Whatis most interesting about this testimony is the description of the manner in which some of thewomen became hysterical during the air raid and believed that they were inhaling poison gas.Another conclusion which could be drawn from this testimony is that the SS were concernedwith protecting their inmates from air raids, and that there must have existed several such air raid shelters at Birkenau, which must have been gas-tight, that however remained entirely un-noticed and unstudied (from: S. Crowell, “Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher Gasschutz-bunker im Zweiten Weltkrieg ”, VffG 1(4) (1997), p. 242, fn. 4 online:

www.vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Crowell4.html; Engl.: “Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in WWII: A Refutation of J.C. Pressac’s Criminal Traces”, online:www.codoh.com/incon/inconpressac.html). Another survivor reports that the inmates wereregularly led into an air raid shelter during Allied air raids in 1944: Colin Rushton, Spectator in Hell. A British Soldier’s Extraordinary Story, Pharaoh Press, Springhill (Berkshire) 1998.

215 Samuel Crowell, ibid.; see also “ Defending Against the Allied Bombing Campaign: Air Raid Shelters and Gas Protection in Germany, 1939-1945”, online:www.codoh.com/incon/inconabr.html; “The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes: An Attempt at a Literary Analysis of the Holocaust Gassing Claim”, online:www.codoh.com/incon/inconshr123.html; “ New Documents on Air Raid Shelters at AuschwitzCamp”, online: www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/documents/LSKeller/MoscowDocs.html; “Com-

ments on Mattogno’s critique of the bomb shelter thesis”, online:www.codoh.com/incon/inconscrmtgno.html; “ Bombenschutzeinrichtungen in Birkenau: Eine Neubewertung ”, VffG 4(3&4) (2000), pp. 284-330; Engl. “ Bomb Shelters in Birkenau: A Re-appraisal ”, online: www.codoh.com/incon/inconbsinbirk.html.



5. AUSCHWITZ

107

5.4.1.2.4. Ventilation InstallationsFact: All rooms in crematoria II and III were equipped with effi-

cient ventilation installations.216

Incorrect conclusion: Morgues 1 of crematoria II and III wereconverted into homicidal ‘gas chambers’ equipped with installationsfor the intended purpose of evacuating poison gases.217

Correct conclusion: It is in fact inconceivable that a large morguewithout windows and with only one door filled with innumerable bod-ies of the victims of epidemic disease would not be equipped with aventilation installation. The efficiency of the ventilation, however, proves that these installations were designed for typical morgues.218

The efficiency of the blowers may be seen from the invoices sent to the Zentralbauleitung by the Topf corporation after installation of the sys-tems.219 According to the invoices, both morgues #1, i.e., the alleged‘gas chambers’ (in the invoice designated as the “ B-room”), were eachequipped with a 4,800 m3/h intake and outlet blower,220 while for the“ L-room” (the so-called “undressing room”) only one outlet blower was installed, with a capacity of 10,000 m3/h.221

216 The ventilation ducts of morgue 1 are visible in the plans published by J.-C. Pressac, op. cit.(note 67), pp. 224, 289; chapter on the ventilation installations of crematoria II and III: ibid.,

pp. 355ff.; engine power of the ventilation installations for all rooms in crematoria II and III:ibid., p. 374 and 377; size of the ventilation outlets: ibid., p. 234; Fig. of an outlet cover in theventilation outlets.

217 For Pressac see footnote above; a similar opinion has been expressed by Van Pelt, Pelt Report ,op. cit. (note 66), p. 208, as well as by Judge Gray in the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial, op. cit. (note66), §7.62.

218 See also, in this regard, Carlo Mattogno, “ Auschwitz. das Ende einer Legende”, in: HerbertVerbeke (ed.), op. cit. (note 43, also the English version), pp. 134f. (online: Ger.:www.vho.org/D/anf/Mattogno.html; Engl.: www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html). The

following remarks are closely patterned after Mattogno; for further details, see Mattogno.219 Invoice no. 729 dated May 27, 1943. APMO, D-Z/Bau, nr. inw. 1967, pp. 246f.; ibid., 231f.:invoice no. 171 dated 22. February 1943 for crematorium II.

220 The engines had a nominal output of 2 HP (approximately 1.5 KW). The output data relate toa back-pressure of 40 mm water column. The increment calculations for estimating the venti-lation shaft resistances in crematoria II & III according to engineering handbooks have shownthat the back pressure to be expected would probably have been higher (in the region of 50-60mm water columns), due, particularly, to the primitive lids with many small holes covering theventilation slit. Two blowers were probably used for this reason. Personal communicationfrom Hans Lamker, a certified engineer.

221 J.-C. Pressac gives the output of these blowers at 8,000 m³/h, but without proving it (together

with Robert van Pelt in: Yisrael Gutman, Michael Berenbaum (ed.), Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Indiana University Press, Bloomington 1994, pp. 210, 232). Perhaps he simplycrudely added the output of the two blowers together, which is impermissible, since the blow-ers did not work in parallel, but rather, in series (behind each other).




108

When considering the volume of the two morgues (morgue 1÷504m3; morgue 2÷900 m3), the results for the alleged, planned ‘gas chambers’ (4,800/504 =) are approximately 9.5 air exchanges per hour and

for the undressing room (10,000/900 =) approximately 11 air ex-changes per hour. Does anybody seriously believe that, at the end of May 1943, i.e., two months after the beginning of the alleged massmurders, it was assumed that the ‘gas chambers’ would need less venti-lation than the undressing rooms, or even less than the dissectingrooms, laying out rooms and wash rooms, the ventilation efficiency of which were even greater—approximately 131/3 air exchanges per hour?

Wilhem Heepke’s classic work on the construction of crematoriastates that a morgue requires a minimum of 5 air exchanges per hour and 10 during intensive use.222 Thus it is clear that the ventilation in-stallations provided for the morgues were designed, in terms of ordersof magnitude, for morgues in intensive use or for morgues containingthe bodies of epidemic disease victims. For comparison: Zyklon B dis-infestation chambers with circulating air systems were equipped with72 air exchanges per hour.223 Furthermore, it should be mentioned thatthe original plans for a new crematorium in the main camp from1941—a time when even Pressac admits that the SS had no criminal

intentions—provided for 17(!) air exchanges per hour for the dissect-ing room(!) and the morgues.224 This exchange rate is considerablyhigher than what was later realized for all rooms of crematoria II andIII, including the alleged ‘gas chambers’. Thus, on the way from bene-ficial planning to (allegedly sinister) construction, the air exchangerates had been drastically reduced (probably in order to reduce costs).Does anybody seriously believe, the SS would have lowered the venti-lation capacity when changing the designation of a morgue from a

beneficial use to a homicidal ‘gas chamber’, instead of increasing it?This is thus the final refutation of any argument on the alleged criminalcharacteristics of the ventilation installations in these crematoria.

5.4.1.2.5. Pre-heated MorguesFact: The morgues of crematoria II and III were never heated, al-

though a heating system was temporarily considered; water pipes in

222

W. Heepke, Die Leichenverbrennungs-Anstalten, C. Marhold, Halle 1905, p. 104.223 Gerhard Peters, Emil Wüstiger “Sach-Entlausung in Blausäure-Kammern”, Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung , 10/11 (1940), pp. 191-196, here p. 195.

224 J.-C. Pressac, Les crématoires d’Auschwitz, op. cit. (note 90) p. 18.



5. AUSCHWITZ

109

morgue 1 were removed.225 Incorrect conclusion: Morgues need no heating for normal opera-

tional functioning. Crematoria II and III were converted into homicidal

‘gas chambers’, (intended to be) equipped with a heating system sothat ‘the gas would work more rapidly’. It was necessary to eliminatethe plumbing system in the morgue because panic-stricken inmateswould have damaged the pipes.226

Correct conclusion: According to expert literature, morgues do in-deed need some kind of heating equipment, because corpses must be protected from the effects of frost and freezing temperatures in win-ter.227 Hence, under normal operation, morgues would have beenequipped with heating devices, but the initial plans to equip themorgues in Auschwitz with heaters were cancelled,228 rendering theargument irrelevant. Regarding the removal of the water pipes, a ‘non-criminal’ explanation follows logically: Since no heating was ever in-stalled in these morgues, there was a danger that the water pipes wouldhave burst in freezing temperatures due to the lack of any heating. Inorder to prevent burst pipes and a subsequent flooding of the morgues,the pipes had to be removed.

5.4.1.2.6. “Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment ”Fact: With regards to the “ Electrical supply and installation of the

concentration camp and prisoner of war camp” the documentary note(“ Aktenvermerk ”) of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung of January 29,1943, states:229

“This putting into operation [of crematorium II] can however onlyextend to restricted use of the available machines (in which case crema-tion with simultaneous special treatment [original: “Sonderbehandlung ”]

will be made possible) since the [electrical] supply leading to the crema- 225 Pre-heating: J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 221, 223. Demolition of the water pipes:

ibid., p. 286; for further details in this discussion, which is just as fruitless, since they are based on the “criminal traces” dreamed up by Pressac, see also, generally, H. Verbeke, op. cit.(note 43).

226 See also the above footnotes referring to Pressac, in particular, relating to the water pipes; asimilar opinion expressed by Van Pelt, Pelt Report , op. cit. (note 66), p. 296, as well as byJudge Gray in the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial, op. cit. (note 66), §7.68.

227 E. Neufert, op. cit. (note 176).228

J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 230. The waste heat of the forced draught blowers was to beused, but since these burned out and were removed, the entire pre-heating project for morgue1 was cancelled.

229 TCIDK 502-1-26-21, Jan. 29, 1943.




110

torium is too weak for its output consumption.”

Incorrect conclusion: Since the “ special treatment ” mentioned apparently required electricity and because the homicidal ‘gas chamber’

possessed an electrical ventilation, R.J. van Pelt concludes that “Son-derbehandlung ” referred to homicidal gassings, which was made pos-sible by operating the ventilation despite a reduced power supply.230

Correct conclusion: First, it is not apparent from this documentwhether or not electricity is required for “ special treatment ”. Further-more, on January 29, 1943, the ventilation installation for the morguehad not yet even been delivered, let alone installed and put into opera-tion. Commencement of construction was not anticipated before Feb-

ruary 10.231

Installation was only charged to the account on February22, 1943.232 Therefore, the “available machines” on January 1, 1943,in no way included the morgue ventilation installations. Actually, theconcept “ special treatment ” in this connection has no ‘criminal’ sig-nificance at all, as W. Stromberger 104 and recently C. Mattogno have pointed out:233

“By considering the historical context—a typhus epidemic increase so dangerous in 1942 as to induce […] Major General of the Waffen SS

Glücks to command on February 8, 1943, the complete quarantine of thecamp[234] —the meaning of the term ‘ special treatment’ in the memoran-dum of January 29, 1943, could only be an extension of its hygienic-

sanitary meaning which emerges from other documents.235 That is, fromthe hygienic-sanitary point of view, the ‘ existing machines’ would have

guaranteed proper cremation with limited capacity.

This is confirmed by a document going back a few weeks. On Janu-ary 13, 1943, Bischoff wrote a letter to the firm Deutsche Ausrüs-tungswerke in Auschwitz with the subject ‘ Fulfillment of carpentry jobs

for the building planning room.’ In this document, Bischoff complained about the delay in receiving doors ‘ for crematorium I in the KGL’, ex-

230 Robert van Pelt, Deborah Dwork, op. cit. (note 92), p. 330.231 Memorandum from Kirschnek dated 29 January 1943. APMO, BW 30/34, p. 105.232 Topf, invoice no. 171 dated 22. February 1943 relating to the installation for the ventilation of

crematorium II. TCIDK , 502-1-327, pp. 25-25a. See also C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 218), pp.136-139.

233

See also C. Mattogno, “ Architektonische Stümpereien…”, op. cit. (note 92), p. 31.234 APMO, Standort-Befehl, D-AuI-1, p. 46.235 For this, see Carlo Mattogno, „Sonderbehandlung“ ad Auschwitz. Genesi e Significato, Edizi-

oni di Ar, Padua 2001.



5. AUSCHWITZ

111

plaining in detail:236

‘Above all, the ordered doors of Bftgb. No. 17010/42/Ky/Pa of order letter dated 26.10.42 for crematorium I of the concentration

camp is urgently needed for carrying out special measures.’The expression ‘ carrying out special measures’ had no criminal sig-

nificance at all. On the contrary, it denoted the construction of hygienic- sanitary installations, including the hospital for the prisoners ( Häftlings-lazarett ) projected for the BIII sector of Birkenau. Therefore, if the cre-matorium was made for ‘ carrying out special measures ,’ it means that it was a part of these installations and its hygienic-sanitary function wasexclusively the cremation of dead bodies of deceased camp prisoners.”

5.4.1.2.7. “Gas Testers” and “Indicator Devices for HCN Resi-dues”

Fact 1: There is a telegram of February 26, 1943, by means of which heating technician Jährling of the Topf & Söhne oven construc-tion firm orders “10 Gas testers” for crematorium II.

Fact 2: There is a letter from the Topf corporation of March 2,1943, which, referring to the above telegram, mentions “ Anzeigegeräte

für Blausäure-Reste” (indicator devices for HCN residues).Incorrect conclusion: The SS ordered the indicator devices in or-der to verify whether the ventilation of the ‘gas chamber’ was success-ful after completion of mass murder with hydrogen cyanide in crema-torium II.237

Correct conclusion: According to the technical literature, “Gastesters” are flue gas analyzers intended to determine the exhaust gascomposition of oven gases.238 Such devices were standard equipmentin crematoria. That the above mentioned order referred to such devicesis clear from the fact that they were ordered by a heating technicianfrom an oven construction firm. The letter in reply from the Topf corporation dated March 2, 1943, stating that one must first find out whomarketed these devices, has been revealed on several occasions to bean absurdity:239

236 APMO, BW 30/34, p. 78.237 See the two footnotes above, with relation to Pressac; van Pelt, Pelt Report , op. cit. (note 66),

pp. 200, 254.238 Akademischer Verein Hütte (ed.), Hütte, Ernst und Sohn, Berlin 271942, p. 1087239 Werner Rademacher, “The Case of Walter Lüftl ”, in Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp.

78ff. (online: www.vho.org/D/gzz/3.html); C. Mattogno, “ Die ‘ Gasprüfer ’ von Auschwitz”,




112

– According to contemporary literature, devices for the detection of HCN residues were called “ Blausäurerestnachweisgeräte” (HCNresidue detection devices) or “Gasrestnachweisgeräte für Zyklon”

(Gas residue detection devices for Zyklon).128

Since the Topf &Söhne corporation according to the letter had already received in-formation on the possibility of procurement of such devices fromthree firms, the correct name of these devices must in the mean-time have penetrated even to Topf & Söhne.

– Furthermore, these detection devices are based on a wet chemicalmethod which possessed no “indicator ” and could not, therefore, be designated as indicator devices. On the other hand, the gas test-ers mentioned in the telegram had a physico-chemical sensor con-nected to a dial (see Fig. 35).

– According to contemporary prescriptions, testing with HCN resi-due testing devices was obligatory in every disinfestation actionusing hydrogen cyanide in order to test whether the ventilation of a fumigated room had been successful before it could be enteredwithout a gas mask. Since disinfestation had been performed on alarge scale in Birkenau since 1941, it is absolutely incredible thatno one should have concerned himself with the possibility of or-

VffG 2(1) (1998), pp. 13-22 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1998/1/Mattogno1.html).240 Alberto Cantagalli, Nozioni teorico-pratiche per i conduttori di caldaie e generatori di vapore, G. Lavagnolo Editore, Turin 1940, p. 308; taken from C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 239),

Fig. 35: Photograph of two indicator devices from theSiemens corporation for the CO2 and/or CO+H 2 - gas

content in %. Component of a gas tester.240



5. AUSCHWITZ

113

dering such devices before early 1943! – Since the creation of Birkenau camp in 1941, the SS garrison doc-

tor for Auschwitz camp was responsible, among other things, for

the ordering, administration, and use of Zyklon B and all materialsfor its handling (disinfestation installations, gas masks, HCN resi-due detection devices, etc.). He therefore had three years experi-ence in this business. Why then should the Zentralbauleitung ,which was not competent in this matter, in addition to being unau-thorized, have issued the order for the procurement of HCN resi-due detection devices in 1943?

– In addition to crematorium ovens, the Topf corporation also pro-duced hot air disinfestation ovens, as well as silo fumigation in-stallations which were, however, not operated with HCN.241 Whythen should the heating technician Jährling, a civilian engineer,order devices of which he had no knowledge from a firm whichobviously did not even know the supplier of the devices when thehealth service of Auschwitz camp had already been regularly supplied with these devices by the Tesch und Stabenow corporationsfor two years and therefore knew the supplier? There was very probably a supply of them in storage at the camp.

It is therefore the conviction of W. Rademacher, C. Mattogno, andmyself that this reply from the Topf corporation is a forgery, in whicha word such as “ Anzeigegeräte für Rauchgasanalyse” was perhapsreplaced by the word “ Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste” (Indica-tor Device for Smoke Analysis by Indicator Device for HCN Resi-dues).

5.4.1.2.8. Zyklon B Introduction Holes and Columns

Fact 1: There are eyewitness testimonies claiming that there werethree or four square holes measuring 70 cm in the roofs of bothmorgues 1 of crematoria II and III.. According to some witnesses, col-umns fabricated of mesh metal ran from the floor of the morguesthrough the holes in the ceiling and protruded over the roof. Zyklon Bis alleged to have been thrown into these columns for the purpose of

p. 19.241 Hydrogen cyanide would form poisonous residues with moist food. The gases Areginal andCartox were used; see also G. Kunike, Das ABC der Vorrats- und Hausschädlinge und ihre

Bekämpfung , Theodor Weicher, Berlin 1941, pp. 53f.




114

mass killings.242 Fact 2: There are two photographs showing objects on the roof

(see further below).Fact 3: There is a document mentioning “ Drahtnetzeinschubvor-

richtungen” (wire mesh push-in devices).Incorrect conclusion: The eyewitnesses are right.Correct conclusion: Pressac reproduced a photo of crematorium II

showing square objects located on the roof of morgue 1 (the fourthobject obviously lies behind the cellar).243 The same photograph alsoappears in Danuta Czech’s book.244 It was taken in early February

1943, see Fig. 36, the decisive detail of which being magnified in Fig.37. If these objects are really Zyklon B introduction holes, as Pressac believes, then one must assume that the objects are:

a) of equal size b) regularly aligned

242 Henryk Tauber: J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67) p. 484; Filip Müller, Sonderbehandlung ,Steinhausen, Munich 1979, p. 95; Charles Sigismund Bendel: E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note42), p. 227; Michal Kula: E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), p. 231; for a summary and cri-

tique of these and other witness accounts on these alleged openings and introduction devices,see G. Rudolf, op. cit. (note 68), pp. 34-37.243 Op. cit. (note 67), crematorium II, p. 340, taken ca. between Feb. 9 and 11, 1943.244 D. Czech, op. cit. (note 89), p. 454.

Fig. 36: Photograph of crematorium II of Birkenau taken in February1943.

244



5. AUSCHWITZ

115

c) regularly distributed along the roof d) nearly the same color ande) casting approximately the same shadows.

Fig. 37 points out the outlines of the cellar, indicating its width as

well as the approximate width of the three objects. Despite the medio-cre resolution of the photograph, it may be concluded that these objectsare of unequal width, not evenly distributed over the roof, but stand, onthe contrary, close together. It also seems peculiar that the shady sideof the first object seen from the left, compared with those of the other two objects, is remarkably light in color. Fig. 38 shows the alignmentof perspective, viewed from above, on which these objects can possi-

Fig. 37: Magnification of detail from Fig. 36 with outlines of the morgue and

scale of measurements drawn in. The width of the three objects in Fig. 36shows strong variation between ca. 50 and 75 cm. Furthermore, it is notablethat the shady side of the first object, seen from the left, is considerably

weaker than those of the others.

Fig. 38: Schematic drawing of a view onto morgue 1 of crematorium II.Longitudinally painted: the concrete longitudinal beam with the 7 supporting pillars. Drawn in as intersecting lines: base-lines, upon which the middle of

the three objects located on the roof must have been located.245 Obviously,they were not evenly distributed along the roof. Grey rectangle: actual

location of the two openings in existence today.




116

bly be located.245 As none of the requirements set forth above is met,the argument that these objects are above-roof parts of Zyklon B intro-duction stacks must be abandoned.

Fig. 39: Photograph of crematorium II from Jan. 20, 1943, similar in perspective as Fig. 36, but without objects on the roof of morgue 1.

It should be mentioned in passing that these objects are not to beseen in other photographs of the morgue, see Fig. 39 taken on January20, 1943,246 as well as another photograph reproduced by Pressac andtaken in the summer of 1943.247 It will therefore be necessary to findanother explanation for the objects in the photograph taken in February

1943, such as, for example, that some sort of objects had been placedon the roof—perhaps in the course of constructing the building, under-takings which were obviously still underway—or horribile dictu, butless likely, that the picture has been retouched at a later date.

Fig. 40 shows an enlargement of an Allied air photo of Birkenaucamp taken on August 25, 1944.248 Darkened areas (arrow) are clearlyvisible on the lateral wing, the roof of morgue 1 (‘the gas chamber’) of crematorium II. A stereoscopic evaluation of this air photo shows thatthese darkened areas on Fig. 40 cannot have possessed any height.249

245 Taken from Jean-Marie Boisdefeu, La controvers sur l’extermination des Juifs par les Alle-mands, volume 1, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1994, p. 168.

246 From D. Czech, op. cit. (note 89), p. 398, and J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 335.247 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 341. Pressac, of course, alleges the existence of Zyklon B

introduction apertures; in actual fact, however, nothing of the sort is to be seen.248 Alliied aerial photographs, National Archives Air Photo Library, Washington, D.C., RG 373

Can F 5367, exp. 3185, published by CIA employees D.A. Brugioni and R.G. Poirier, LeMonde Juif , no. 97, January-March 1980, p. 2, allegedly on their own, private, responsibility.

249

R. Lenski, op. cit. (note 25), pp. 356ff., testimony of aerial photographical appraiser KennethR. Wilson, pp. 8 927-8 941e of the trial transcript; see also B. Kulaszka (ed.), op. cit. (note25), pp. 353f. According to Wilson, the spots on the photos dated Sept. 13, 1944, cannot beseen.



5. AUSCHWITZ

117

Fig. 40: Enlargement of Allied air photo RG 373 Can F 5367, exp. 3185 of Birkenau camp, taken on August 25, 1944. An interesting feature is the dark spots on morgue 1 (‘gas chambers’) of both crematoria (arrow), of which it

is known today that there are no introduction stacks for Zyklon B.

Fig. 41: Schematic drawing of the air photo in Fig. 40. It is immediately apparent that the spots on the roofs of morgues 1 cannot be introduction

stacks: too large, too irregular, wrong direction for ‘shadows’.




118

If the Zyklon B introduction stacks really possessed the dimen-sions of 70 cm (21/3 ft) on each side as described by the eyewitnesses,this cannot be reconciled with the spots on the air photo, which areapproximately 2 to 3 m2 in area (20-23 ft2). It must be noted that thechimneys of the inmate barracks as well as the large crematoriumchimneys are rich in contrast, symmetrical, and straight. The spots onmorgue 1 of both crematoria, by contrast, form an angle of approxi-mately 75-80° (crematorium III) or 80-90° (crematorium II, irregular)to the arrangement of the main wing of crematorium II (see schematicdrawing Fig. 41). If these spots were objects of any kind, they wouldhave to exhibit the same alignment as the shadows of the crematorium

chimney of crematorium II, the chimney of an inmate barracks, andother sharply conspicuous parts of the picture. The actual shadows, incontrast to the spots above, form a 45° angle to the main direction of crematoria II and III (see Fig. 41).

We know that the crematorium chimney of crematorium II was15 m high.180 It throws a shadow on the picture which is five times aslong as the spots on the roof of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of cremato-rium III (length of shadow of chimney: 20 m, that is, the angle of the

sun was approximately 37°, length of the spots on morgue 1 (‘gaschamber’) of crematorium III: approximately 4 m). This means simplythat the alleged Zyklon B introduction stack must have projected 3 mabove the roof of morgue 1 (‘gas chambers’) of crematorium III in or-der to cast such long shadows, which may be ruled out as impossible.

Absence of spatial height, irregular shape, incorrect size (lengthand width), and wrong, irregular direction of the spots therefore provedefinitively that these spots are not the shadows of any objects, nor can

250 Figure 42 was taken from the Air Photo Evidence website (air-photo.com/altered/altered.html)with John C. Ball’s kind permission.

Fig. 42: Schematic drawing of thelocation and size of the spots (3)on the roof of morgue 1 (the ‘gas

chamber’) of crematorium II (1)visible on the air photos, as well

as the location (2) of the only holes to be found today.

250



5. AUSCHWITZ

119

they be the legendary Zyklon B introduction stacks. The irregular,vague nature of these spots, as well as the fact that they are missing onat least one air photo,251 gives rise to the conclusion that they are theretouching of a forger, added at a later time. An expert study preparedin late 1992 by John Clive Ball, a professional air photo interpreter inCanada, has since proven that the air photos were faked while theywere in the possession of the CIA– surprise, surprise!252

As a result of the long-lasting wrong interpretation of these spots

on this air photo, the otherwise unfounded allegation was made that thealleged Zyklon B introduction stacks were aligned linearly on the mid-dle of the roof in case of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II,and aligned alternating to the left and to the right of the middle of the

251 J. Ball, op. cit. (note 43), p. 48, morgue 1 of crematorium II, photograph dated 13 September 1944, RG 373 Can B 8413, exp. 6V2.

252 The manipulations on this picture are overly plentiful, such as, for example, an interpolateddrawing of a group of inmates allegedly marching over the roof of a barracks! See also J.C.

Ball, ibid., p. 42; Ball, “ Air Photo Evidence” in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 271-284 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndaerial.html). On the alleged original photo-graphs, it may furthermore be seen that the spots on morgues 1 of both crematoria (II + III) are

pointing in different directions; ibid. private communication by J.C. Ball.

Fig. 43: Interior photograph taken from the ruins of morgue 1 (‘gaschamber’) of crematorium II. The arrow points to the photograph taking

location (see chapter 8.3.3.).




120

roof in case of morgue 1 of crematorium III, according to the locationof the spots on this air photo. The alternating alignment, however,would contradict the argument that the Zyklon B introduction columnswere aligned behind the concrete support pillars in order to concealthem so that the entering victims would not become suspicious. As amatter of fact, no introduction column could have been hidden behinda concrete pillar, because this would have necessitated the opening of ahole not only through the reinforced concrete roof, but also through themassive longitudinal support beam, see Fig. 26, which would havecompromised the stability of the entire morgue. Hence, an alignment tothe left and/or right of the support pillars would have been unavoid-able.

After the building was destroyed towards the end of the war—bywhom does not matter—one occasionally encounters the attitude thatthe remaining ruins are fakes, and that the original installations havedisappeared without a trace. This would mean that the Poles rebuilt thecrematoria true to the original for many millions of Zlotys after the

war, only in order to blow them up. A grotesque idea. Thus the author of the present book was rejected as an expert witness by a court on De-

Fig. 44: Alleged Zyklon B introduction hole in the ceiling of morgue 1 (‘gaschamber’) of crematorium II, entry to the still passable part of the cellar.



5. AUSCHWITZ

121

cember 6, 1991, and May 5, 1992, on the grounds that his research onthe ‘gas chambers’ was fully irrelevant since, as it was allegedly wellknown, the structures in Auschwitz were only fakes, the authentic ‘gaschambers’ having disappeared without a trace.253

Such allegations are, of course, absurd, and only testify to thetechnical incompetence of the judges entrusted with these matters. It isa shame that such individuals are given the power to decide the fate of others in these disputes.254

The roofs of morgue 1 (‘gas chambers’) of both crematoria todayare broken in pieces and have collapsed, but the ceiling of morgue 1(‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II is still relatively intact. The next to

the last of the seven pillars of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of cremato-rium II, seen from the south, still bears a piece of the ceiling. There,one can still climb down into the interior of the cellar through a hole inthe ceiling (Fig. 44, p. 120) (see also Figs. 43 and 45), in which theground water stands on the floor even in summer during a fairly

253 County Court Munich, ref. 451 Cs 112 Js 3326/90 and ref. 432 Cs 113 Js 3619/90.254 See, in this regard, the letter from the semi-official German Institut für Zeitgeschichte, in

which, with relation to the Auschwitz State Museum, the reconstruction of the installations incrematorium I is described and the condition of the original ruins of the crematoria in Birke-nau are briefly mentioned: H. Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Munich, letter datedMarch 20, 1992.

Fig. 45: Ceiling of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II. Sampletaking location of samples 1 and 2.




122

lengthy dry season. Large parts of the masonry work and concrete ceil-ing accessible there are in original condition, protected from wind andweather. There are no visible signs of erosion or corrosion. In his book,Pressac shows illustrations of the circular, intact ventilation pipe open-ings through the ceiling of morgue 2 of crematorium II as well asthrough the concrete ceiling of the oven room of crematorium III.255

Figs. 49-53 (p. 126) show the five openings in the ceiling of theoven room of crematorium III as of December 1991. They were used

to withdraw radiant heat from the crematorium ovens. The ceiling col-lapsed during the demolition of the oven room and most of the fiveholes were partially destroyed during the process.

If the Zyklon B introduction holes described by eyewitnessesreally existed, with the wire mesh columns installed inside them, thenwhat else is to be expected?

1. According to eyewitness Henryk Tauber, the victims wouldhave demolished all the equipment in this room:256

255 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 365f.256 Ibid., pp. 483f.; Pelt Report , op. cit. (note 66), p. 106.

Fig. 46: Alleged Zyklon B introduction hole in the roof of morgue 1 (‘gaschamber’) of crematorium II in December 1991. It is clearly visible that it was

not cleared from the steel reinforcement rods. These were simply bent backwards.



5. AUSCHWITZ

123

“The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber dam-aged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging theventilation equipment.”

2. Several hundred people, locked into a cellar with a very smallsurface area, anticipating death, would panic and attempt to escape,damaging everything that stood in their way. So what would the vic-tims locked into the cellar have done to the wire mesh columns de-scribed by the eyewitnesses? If these columns actually existed, their outer framework would have to have been of solid steel, but certainlynot of fragile wire mesh construction.

3. These columns would, in addition, have had to have been sol-

idly anchored in the concrete ceiling, the floor, and the concrete pillars.But since solid anchoring dowels did not yet exist at that time, hoopirons would have been cast into the concrete during the construction of the cellar, spread out to a ‘dovetail’ inside the concrete.257 If carriedout after completion of the building, holes would have been chiseledinto the concrete, and the hoop irons would have been cast in cementfilling these holes, see Fig. 47. In both cases, a removal of such cast-inhoop irons would have been impossible. Allone could do is cut them off with a saw or awelding torch.258 Hence, if any introductiondevice was ever installed in these morgues,traces of such hoop irons must still be present.

4. Furthermore, the steel reinforcementrods in the reinforced concrete would have torun wreath-like around the hole, and would becapable of verification by means of inductiondevices, even today.

5. Since, in addition, the morgues’ roofswere covered with a layer of soil approxi-mately one half meter thick, the entire con-struction would have to be protected againstthe intrusion of soil and rain water, and in sodoing it would have been indispensable toraise the edges of the holes above the surface

257 I am grateful to Carl Hermann Christmann, a certified building engineer, for this information.258 I am grateful to R. Faßbender, a certified building engineer, for this information, who also

provided the drawings.

Fig. 47: Hoop ironwith dovetail, cast in cement in a hole

in concrete.




124

of the roof like miniature chimneys. Nothing of the kind can be found on the roof of morgue 1 of cre-

matorium II which has remained largely intact. The only two holeswhich can be found today of anything approaching the diameter in-volved were obviously crudely pierced at a later time, as may beenseen in Figs. 46 and 44 (p. 120). Even Pressac admits that these are theonly holes visible today.259 Nevertheless his richly illustrated book in-cludes not one clear photograph of the two existing holes.

All other smaller breakthroughs, cracks, and openings in the roofs

of morgues 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematoria II and III visible today are breaks in the reinforced concrete effected at a later time with the ironreinforcing rods sticking out. Nowhere does one find cleanly pouredconcrete edges or rough, chiseled out edges with some remaining plas-ter work; there are no remains of ascending concrete or brick/mortar stacks; no steel reinforcement rods running other than would be expected for an ordinary flat roof without holes; and there are no tracesof any hoop irons, dovetails, or any other means of anchoring any de-

vice to the morgue’s floor, ceiling, or concrete pillars.259 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 354.

Fig. 48: Notch (fatigue) effect resulting at inserted openings from theapplication of force. The only crack running through the wall proceeds,

naturally enough, from the corner of the window.260



5. AUSCHWITZ

125

If any of these holes were used as Zyklon B introduction holes,they would have to have been broken through following completion of the roof, i.e., shortly before the commencement of the alleged mass

murders.261

Such holes with no plasterwork to polish off their roughedges, however, could neither have been sealed against escaping poi-son gas, nor against intruding soil and water, nor would it have been possible to safely install any panic-proof introduction devices in them.Using such crude holes would truly be an incredibly stupid piece of bungling.

But there is more. In the opening shown in Fig. 46 the reinforce-ment rods were only separated and bent back. They possess their fulllength even today. One could bend them back again and weld them back together with their stumps, which are also visible to the left of the photograph (covered with snow).262 Nor is there any trace of rein-forcement rods running in a wreath-like pattern around the hole. Thishole, therefore, can never have been used as an introduction hole; itwas never finished. And what makes matters worse: this is still the‘best’ of all holes and cracks in this roof in existence today. All othersare even more irregular and filled with reinforcement rods.

No apparatus, using the technology available at that time, could be

anchored in such crudely pierced, unplastered holes, from which thereinforcement rods were not even removed; therefore, no gas introduc-tion device could ever have been firmly installed, let alone sealed fromthe exterior. This means that the entire environment including the supposed perpetrators would have been endangered by the gas streamingout of the opening. The supposed victims could furthermore only have been prevented by force from escaping through these holes, or eventhrowing the Zyklon B back out through the hole, since these holes

were obviously incapable of closing.We might even go much further in this direction: we can tell from

260 Kurier , Aug. 30, 1992, p. 20: “Wenn Felsen fallen”.261 The ceiling was finished towards the winter of 1942/43, while the mass exterminations alleg-

edly began in March 1943; see also J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 338f.262 Please do not attempt to bend them back again! More recent photographs show that individu-

als have obviously broken off two of the three reinforcement rods during similar such at-tempts. One of these persons who unintentionally broke off one rod was Dr. Fredrick Töben in

February 1997, as he advised me personally after his visit to Auschwitz. Another rod was bro-ken off later by unknown person(s), see. Carlo Mattogno, “ Keine Löcher, keine Gaskam-mer(n)” VffG 6(3) (2002), pp. 284-304 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/2002/3/Mattogno284-304.html).




126

the concrete when at least one of the two large holes was pierced. Anopening pierced through the concrete in the roof of either morgue 1(‘gas chamber’) in consideration at a later time would inevitably havehad the consequence, when the building was blown up, that the breaksand fissures caused to the roof by the explosion would have run preferentially through these holes.

The reason for this is that explosions exert extraordinarily great

forces, and that the formation of cracks is favored by any weakness inthe structure, since the tension peaks attain very high values in the vi-cinity of acute angles (notch effect, see Fig. 48). Such holes, in particu-

Figs. 49-53: The five properly constructed ventilation holes in the ceiling of the oven room to the upper story, crematorium III; condition: December

1991. Note the cracks caused by the explosion.

21

3 3

45



5. AUSCHWITZ

127

lar, which would already have damaged the structure of the concretedue to their incorporation following completion of the structure, repre-sent not only points of likely fracture, but points of inevitable fracture.

This is made more obvious by Figs. 49-53 (p. 126). Although the explosion pressure in the oven room, on an even level with the ground,could turn aside in all directions, and the roof remains relatively intactto the attic, three of the five oven room ventilation holes, cleanly castand reinforced in the concrete roof, were completely destroyed. In thecase of two of the other holes, clearly visible cracks formed at the cor-ners, visible in the photos reproduced by Pressac.255

In the morgues of crematoria II and III, the explosion pressurecould only turn upwards, causing their roofs to be much more seriouslydamaged than the roof of the oven room. The alleged Zyklon B intro-duction holes in the roof of morgue 1(‘gas chamber’) of crematoriumII however are conspicuous for having remained relatively intact; inthe case of the hole in Fig. 46 all the cracks and fissures run aroundthis hole! On the spot, one furthermore recognizes the arbitrary ar-rangement of this hole in a location at which the roof of the morgue isundamaged. This alone proves with building engineering certainty thatthis hole was broken through after the destruction of the roof!

The chisel marks on the edge of the hole in Fig. 44 are so similar to those in Fig. 46 that it must be assumed that both holes have thesame history.263

There were therefore no holes in the ceilings of these roomsthrough which the poison gas preparation could be introduced bymeans of wire mesh pillars” or otherwise, as described by eyewit-nesses.

Prof. van Pelt remarked accurately in this regard:264

“Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh col-umns and the chimneys [on the roof of morgue 1, crematorium II] cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does thismean they were never there?”

An interesting question, which the professor of architectural his-tory answers as follows:

263

Carlo Mattogno, op. cit. (note 262), has shown that the size of this hole actually increasedover the years, probably because the Auschwitz Museum wants to give it a more regular, rec-tangular shape.

264 Pelt Report , op. cit. (note 66), p. 295.




128

“While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would havebeen logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some

framework at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some con-crete in the holes, and thus restore the slab.”

Van Pelt’s claim that the camp administration could have filled theholes in the ceiling with concrete in the fall of 1944 in order to restorethe ceiling, is without proof. But at least Prof. van Pelt believes that theSS administration acted logically, in that they allegedly attempted towipe away all trace of their alleged crime. But does van Pelt really be-lieve that it would have made more sense to fill up the holes with con-crete instead of removing the entire roof of the ‘gas chamber’, as wasdone with the roofs of morgues 2, the “

undressing room”? An Allied

air photo taken on December 21, 1944, shows that the roof of the other morgue, which is not alleged to have been used to commit any mur-ders, was completely removed.265 Obviously the whole matter makesno sense. To believe van Pelt, we must believe, that the SS arbitrarilycreated architectural relics to confuse later tourists and Holocaust re-searchers instead of destroying the roof entirely, as in the case of theundressing room. This seems too absurd to be taken seriously.

But if van Pelt had the most rudimentary knowledge of architec-

ture, he would know that it is impossible to remove holes measuring 70× 70 cm (that is almost half a square meter!) from a concrete roof without leaving clearly visible traces. Actually, however, there are notraces of openings in the roof later closed with concrete.

In addition, concrete patches filled in later would have flown outof these holes like corks out of a shaken champagne bottle during anexplosion, thus making the holes just as visible as they were before.On closer inspection, Prof. van Pelts allegation turns out to be not only

demonstrably wrong, but utterly absurd.But at least Prof. van Pelt agrees with the revisionists that there are

no remains of these alleged holes. In remarking that there are no suchtraces, van Pelt has in fact proven that there were never any holes inthe ceiling of this room, and, consequently, no Zyklon B introductionholes of any nature whatever, and, consequently, no introduction of any poisonous substances whatever in the manner described by the‘eyewitnesses’. He has proven that his ‘eyewitnesses’ were lying. He

265 Dino A. Brugioni, Robert G. Poirier, op. cit. (note 248), p. 15; see also G. Rudolf, op. cit.(note 68), p. 39. I am grateful to Fritz P. Berg for this argument.



5. AUSCHWITZ

129

has proven that there is no proof for the mass murders in Auschwitz.Actually, he has proven that there is no proof for the Holocaust. “ Noholes, no ‘Holocaust’” (Robert Faurisson). It is beautiful to see the

great Professor of Architecture Robert Jan van Pelt in the year 2000come to the same conclusion as myself in the year 1991, when I inves-tigated the ceiling of the alleged ‘gas chamber’ of crematorium II of Birkenau. Only our conclusions are somewhat divergent.

At this point, I would like to introduce a witness who contactedDavid Irving by e-mail after conclusion of Mr. Irving’s legal proceed-ings against Deborah Lipstadt in May 2000. He is an engineer namedBarford; his colleagues are assisting in the conservation and restorationof the camp for the Auschwitz Museum administration. He informedDavid Irving that, during his trial, investigations were made in complete secrecy at Auschwitz with regards to the mystery of the holes,and then remarked:

“[W]hat happened to their [the Auschwitz Museum’s] tests on theroof of Crema II mentioned in the attachment. Did they find the Zyklon Bholes or not? Did they report those results to Lipstadt’s lawyers, and when! […]

As you can guess, despite my belief that you and the Revisionists arewrong, and despite spending half an hour examining the collapsed roof of the underground gas chamber of crematorium II from different angles,

I found no evidence of the four holes that the eye-witnesses say werethere […].

Secondly several areas of the slabs are covered in small rubble froman outer layer of concrete which was fractured by the blast. Now I would have expected these fragments to have fallen through the holes, if theywere there, into the void beneath. […]

I remain puzzled by the lack of physical evidence for these holes.”

In early 2000, Charles D. Provan distributed a paper claiming hehad located the missing holes in the roof of morgue 1 of crematoriumII.266 What Provan did, however, was simply to declare those cracks as‘holes’, which were caused by the concrete support pillars piercingthrough the collapsing roof and cracks caused by the roof bending over the longitudinal beam. All holes described by Provan are full of rein-

266 “ No Holes? No Holocaust? A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller 1 of Kremato-rium II at Birkenau” published by author in early 2000; online:http://www.revisingrevisionism.com.




130

forcement bars, they lack regular shape, have no straight edges andcorners (as is to be expected for

regular, planned-in holes), no tracesof plaster (as is to be expected if holes were chiseled in later), notraces of chimney extensions to leadthese stacks through the soil, notraces of anchoring devices (rawl plugs, hoop irons, dovetails…). Inhis schematic drawing of the roof,Provan even possesses the boldnessto display these cracks as holes withregular shapes.267 C. Mattogno has pointed out in detail how unfoundedand distorted Provan’s claims reallyare.268

Finally, I want to focus on thoselegendary “ Zyklon B introductioncolumns” for which Michal Kula is

the most frequently quoted ‘eye wit-ness’. He gives a detailed descrip-tion of these columns which heclaimed he had built.269 J.-C. Pres-sac270 (see Fig. 54) and Prof. vanPelt271 have prepared drawings of these columns based on Kula’s de-scription. Firstly, there neither exists

material nor documentary evidencethat these columns existed.268 All we

267 Ibid., p. 36.268 Carlo Mattogno, op. cit. (note 262).269 Höß trial, vol. 2, pp. 99-100.270 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 487; on p. 287, Pressac shows a rather primitive drawing

with French inscriptions, probably prepared by a former French inmate on request of the So-viet investigation commission right after the war.

271

R. van Pelt, op. cit. (note 69), pp. 194, 208; caveat emptor : Though van Pelt’s translation of Kula’s testimony is erroneous, and though the data supplied in Kula’s testimony is rather meager, van Pelt uses it to make five different, very detailed drawings—some of it necessarily

based on van Pelt’s fantasy, and the rest based on Kula’s fantasy.

Fig. 54: J.-C. Pressac’s drawing

of the legendary “Zyklon Bintroduction columns” asdescribed by Michal Kula.

270

Fig. 55: Handwritten entries in aninventory list of crematorium II for morgue 2. The lower one reads“Holzblenden” (wooden blinds).

Can anybody guess what the upper one means?

195



5. AUSCHWITZ

131

actually have in this regard is a handwritten entry in an inventory listfor crematorium II,195 of which some people claim it means “4 Draht-netzeinschubvorrichtungen”, which, literally translated means some-

thing like ‘wire mesh push-in device’. I have reproduced this handwrit-ten entry in Fig. 55. The following points deserve to be taken notice of: – this entry is basically illegible and could also mean something

else; – it is unknown, by whom and when this handwritten entry was

made; – this entry is made for morgue no. 2, the alleged undressing cellar,

not(!) for morgue 1, the alleged ‘gas chamber’; – if Kula’s introduction columns would be included in this inventory

list, they would appear with an appropriate name describing thewhole thing, not just a ‘push-in device,’ which could only be theinner part of Kula’s device;

– in German, schub describes horizontal (pushing) movements,272 whereas for vertically lowering an object, the word laß is used,i.e., Einlaßvorrichtung instead of Einschubvorrichtung .Whatever this handwritten entry really refers to, one thing is clear:

it does not support Kula’s claim of the existence of complex Zyklon B

introduction devices(!) in morgue 1(!) of the crematoria II and III.Furthermore, M. Kula’s credibility as a witness must be consid-

ered very low, since he claims for example that he saw how corpses of gassing victims were carried away:

“I saw then that they [the corpses] were greenish. The nurses told me that the corpses were cracked, and the skin came off.”

As will be shown in chapter 7., victims of Zyklon B gassingsaren’t greenish (they are pinkish-reddish), and there is no reason for the corpses to crack and for their skin to come off. This is nothing butatrocity propaganda.

But let us assume for a moment, the SS would have faced the problem of introducing HCN into the morgues 1 of crematoria II andIII after their roofs had been finished. I offer two options to solve the problem, and every reader might pick the solution that seems morelikely:

a) Pierce (2×4=) eight holes through the reinforced concrete roofs – a

272 E.g., a cabinet’s drawer is a Schublade.




132

laborious and expensive task, leading to massive, irreparable dam-age to the roofs’ layer of tar and upper cement layer; add (2×4=)eight brick or concrete chimneys of at least 1 m height to lead the

holes through the layer of soil on top of the roofs, and attemptingto repair the damage done to the roof by the violent hole piercing process – another laborious, material consuming, and expensivetask; design and construct (2×4) eight wire mash columns 3 mhigh, consisting of three parts: a panic-proof, outer column madeof massive steel, a middle wire mesh column (with no purpose atall but to hinder the HCN from spreading out), and a removableinner wire mesh column, another laborious, material as well astime consuming, and expensive task; finding a way to anchor these eight devices panic-proof in the concrete floor, ceiling and pillars, another laborious and expensive task; all these works hadto be planned, approved, tested, and material had to be allotted,leaving a thick and long ‘paper trail’ of documents (which, by theway, doesn’t exist); but finally, all one would possess at the endwould be a primitive device allowing for the simple introductionof Zyklon B by pouring it into the inner column; one had to sit andwait for a long time until a lethal amount of HCN had evaporated

from the Zyklon B carrier and had spread into the morgue, or al-ternatively, one had to apply an excessive amount of Zyklon B toensure high evaporation rates for quick execution success, and re-move and destroy the Zyklon B after the gassing, though only afraction of the HCN had been released by then.273 But there was a second, much simpler option:

b) Installing a simple basket – to hold Zyklon B – in the air intakeshaft of morgue 1 right after the easily accessible intake ventilator,

which then would blow the HCN vapors right into the ‘gas chamber’, similar to the DEGESCH circulation procedure; thus reduc-ing the gassing time and the amount of Zyklon B required to afraction compared to any scenario where Zyklon B is simply keptclosely together on heaps without any moving air.274

273 For evaporation rates of Zyklon B, see chapter 7.2. and 7.3.1.3.274 The brick-built air intake duct was easily accessible from the attic, where the fans were in-

stalled, and the ground floor; see J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 276, 291, 329, 369. The

use of the air intake fan to introduce HCN would have lead to some HCN losses through theair exhaust chimney already during the gassing, thus endangering anybody close to those cre-matoria, but certainly not more than would have been the case when all the HCN had to beremoved after the end of a hypothetical gassing, so this would not be an argument against this



5. AUSCHWITZ

133

Also, one could have drastically increased the evaporation rate of the Zyklon B in this basket even further, hence accelerating theexecution procedure. All that would have been required was to al-

ter an idea the Topf engineers had in early March 1943. When fac-ing cooling problems of the cremation furnaces’ forced draught blowers, the Topf engineers suggested to use the excess heat pro-duced by these engines to pre-heat the morgue. The only construc-tional change needed for this was to redirect this excess heat intothe morgue’s air intake duct.275 Though the forced draught blowersoverheated and were damaged shortly thereafter,228 it would have been easy to construct a short air duct from the furnace chimney tothe air intake duct of morgue 1 instead. In this way, warm air com-ing from the crematory ovens would have been redirected over theZyklon B basket into morgue 1, supplying this room with warmair enriched with HCN.I assume the point I am making is clear: there were all sorts of

cheaper and less complicated solutions available than suggested byMichal Kula. His solution is simply impracticable and is an insult toevery engineer’s and architect’s intelligence—naturally bearing inmind the fact that the ruins of crematorium II clearly prove that no

such columns were ever installed anyway.

5.4.1.2.9. ConclusionsPressac’s “criminal traces” have been refuted on structural engi-

neering grounds. So, too, have all the ‘eyewitnesses’, who have beendiscredited without exception. The alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’are therefore refuted upon the grounds of building engineering. Or, inRobert Faurisson’s words:

“ No Holes, No ‘Holocaust’”

In summary, the arguments relating to the introduction columnsmay be listed as follows:

technique. Also, such a loss of HCN is minimal compared to the loss following Kula’s sce-nario. For more on this, see chapter 7.3.1.3.

275 See chapter 5.4.1.2.5.




134

Table 1: Arguments relating to the Zyklon B introduction columns

ALLEGATION FACT

Zyklon B introductionstacks are visible onmorgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) crematoria II andIII on an air photo.

An analysis of this air photo proves that the spotsvisible have no spatial height, have an irregular shape,an incorrect size (much too long and wide), and ir-regular directions different from real shadows; thesespots can therefore neither be shadows of any objects,nor can they be the legendary Zyklon B introductionstacks.

The filling stacks arevisible on a ground photo of crematorium II.

These three objects are only visible on one photo-graph; on others they are missing. They stand closelytogether, have different dimensions and irregular alignment. Introduction stacks would have the samesize, a regular alignment and evenly distributed over the roof. The objects do not accord with the holesactually found, either in location or in number.

For planned introductionholes, cleanly cast andreinforced holes withconcrete/brick stacks protruding over the layer

of soil laying on this roof would have to be expected.

The only two holes deserving this name clearly showchisel marks; the concrete structure was destroyed at alater time; there are no smooth, cast concrete edgesand surfaces, no stack-like elevation to prevent theentry of rain water and soil into the hole. All other

cracks and openings are highly irregular, filled withreinforcements rods, and obviously caused by thecollapsing roof being pierced by pillars and bent over the longitudinal beam.

For holes chiseled in, thereinforcement rodswould have to be re-moved, the edges pol-ished off, and a protrud-

ing stack built. Suchholes would be severelydamaged by an explo-sion.

In all cases the reinforcement rods still project intothe holes; in one case, these were only cut throughand bent back. The edges of all holes and cracks werenot plastered; the tar insulation is openly visible; thereis no trace of any stacks added. The ‘best’ of these

holes is in an area unaffected by the explosion that blew up this morgue, proving that this hole was chis-eled in after the war.

The installation of intro-duction devices runningfrom the ceiling to thefloor requires panic- proof fixtures, like mas-sive rawl-plugs and hoopirons with dovetails

No trace of such fixtures can be found anywhere,hence no such devices were ever installed.



5. AUSCHWITZ

135

5.4.2. Crematoria IV and VFigure 56 shows the ground plan of crematorium IV and mirror-

symmetrically that of crematorium V.276 Based on cost considerations,these buildings, planned and begun later, were constructed in a simpler manner than crematoria II and III. Due to low quality materials, thecrematorium ovens of both crematoria broke down shortly after the putting into operation of the installation. They were not repaired due tocrematorium over-capacity. There are few documents as well as con-tradictory and, to some extent, incredible eyewitness testimonies relat-ing to these installations, which, according to Pressac, must be consid-ered the least well-known:277

“[…] the least known of the instruments of extermination […] acomparison of such testimonies reveals inconsistencies.”

These crematoria were planned starting in the summer of 1942, built until early 1943. According to Pressac, in addition to the twowestern rooms, which bear no designation in the plans, the vestibulesare also supposed to have been used as homicidal ‘gas chambers’. All

276 Plan received from R. Faurisson. The same plan is found in J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p.401, but of very poor quality.

Fig. 56: North lateral view (above) and ground plan (below) of crematoriumIV and/or V (mirror image) in Auschwitz II/Birkenau camp.

276

1: Alleged ‘gas chambers’; 2: Alleged Zyklon B introduction hatches; 3:Heating ovens; 4: Coke room; 5: Doctor’s office; 6: Morgue; 7: Ventilation

chimneys; 8: Gullies; 9: Oven room; 10: Crematorium ovens

Northside




136

these rooms allegedly possessed gas-tight hatches with wooden shut-ters approximately 1.50 m from the floor and measuring 30×40 cm, inthe exterior walls, for the introduction of Zyklon B,278 which are later

supposed to have been widened to 40×50 cm.279

Both rooms had heating furnaces that needed to be fired from thevestibule, which, according to Pressac, was allegedly also used as a‘gas chamber’ (for the heating, see Fig. 56). No ventilation installationis known to have existed. Pressac assumes ventilation by natural con-vection.279 Franciszek Piper, Director of the Auschwitz Museumagrees:164

“There were plans for mechanical ventilation of the Zyklon B, but

these were not put into effect. Evacuation of the gas was instead achieved by convection, that is, by merely opening the doors.”

Pressac alleges the later incorporation of a door in the corridor for natural ventilation support, but without proving it.280 Since it wouldhardly have been any more expensive for the SS to provide for me-chanical ventilation in these rooms, and since this solution would have been considerably more effective, Pressac’s argument of the installa-tion of a door for ventilation can be rejected as unrealistic. It is also

obvious that the morgue and oven room possessed ventilation chim-neys. The rooms which purportedly served as ‘gas chambers,’ how-ever, are the only rooms which, apart from the coke room and doctor’soffice,281 possessed no ventilation chimney!

According to an older Pressac publication,282 these ‘gas chambers’were not planned and built as such either, which he bases, among other things, on the fact that the absence of a ventilation installation wouldhave led to a need to evacuate the entire building for many hours dur-ing a gassing.283 It is, in fact, inconceivable for a gas chamber not to

277 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 379ff., chapter on crematoria IV and V.278 Ibid., p. 384. For an illustration of the gas-tight door and hatches, see pp. 46-49, 425-428, 486,

500.279 Ibid., p. 386.280 Pressac points to a photo of crematorium IV, ibid., p. 417, as proof of his hypothesis. But

since the photograph was taken from the south side while the corridor lies on the north side of the building, the door shown in the plan is the access, drawn on the plan, to one of the undes-ignated rooms. If he means to refer to crematorium V, hidden in the forest in the background,then it is impossible to claim seriously that anything can be recognized on this photo.

281

A doctor’s office in crematoria, by the way, is quite normal, even today; see also E. Neufert,op. cit. (note 176).282 J.-C. Pressac, Le Monde Juif , no. 107, Juli-September 1982, pp. 91-131.283 Pressacs argues this way in his new book as well, op. cit. (note 90), pp. 67, 89.



5. AUSCHWITZ

137

possess a ventilation system, regardless of the purpose for which it wasdesigned.

In his new book, Pressac leaves these arguments unchanged.284

Since the mass extermination of the Jews was supposed to have beenalready fully underway—particularly, in farmhouses I and II—whencrematoria IV and V were being planned, it is, of course, absurd to be-lieve that these installations could have been incorrectly designed and built. Today, therefore, Pressac assumes a “criminal planning” of thecrematoria.285 Proof of such criminality is alleged to have been supplied by various documents, mentioning the “installation of gas-tight [sic] windows”, “ pouring concrete floor in gas chamber”, and repeated mentions of gas-tight doors in various connections.286

As already shown in the chapter on the disinfestation of personaleffects, the German word “Gaskammer” (gas chamber) was the desig-nation commonly used at that time for the disinfestation of personaleffects. The combination of crematoria and disinfestation installationsin one and the same building was very common practice at that time.287 Indications have since been found leading to the inference that it wasinitially planned to use the rooms referred to in some documents as“ gas chambers” for disinfestation purposes. One factor in favor of this

hypothesis, for example, is that the ovens for the heating of theserooms had to be heated from the hallway, and that the lamps plannedfor installation in these rooms had be to explosion-proof, and installedin a recess.288

In the case of crematoria IV and V, one must assume that therooms in question here were intended for disinfestation purposes, butnever completed for this purpose, let alone used. In any case, there isno evidence that ventilation systems absolutely necessary for the use of

HCN were ever installed.289

The reason for this may lie in the fact that

284 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 386.285 Ibid., p. 447.286 Ibid., pp. 406, 442-455.287 For a prominent example, one need only consider Dachau concentration camp, the cremato-

rium building of which contained a series of DEGESCH circulation delousing chambers, see p. 65.

288 A point which suggests that a fundamental danger of explosion must be reckoned with duringfumigations with hydrogen cyanide; see also chapter 6.3.

289

J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 90), pp. 89f., alleges, in this regard, that a ventilation installationwas built into crematorium IV only in late May 1944, but his remarks are untenable in this re-gard; see also Germar Rudolf, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘GasChambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau”, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 347f.




138

starting in early 1943, the Germans were working on the completion of a large hygienic complex with a large hot air disinfestation installation(the so-called ‘ Zentralsauna’) in the immediate vicinity of these cre-

matoria, and were also anticipating the early use of microwave disin-festation installations as promised by Berlin (see chapter 5.2.3.6.).W. Rademacher has remarked that Pressac personally quotes a

document by means of which “210 Gas door anchorings” were or-dered in Auschwitz. This document indicates that the term gas-tight(“ gasdicht ”) does not necessarily constitute a reference to execution of disinfestation chambers, since it has never been claimed that there wasa need for roughly one hundred doors for homicidal ‘gas chambers’ atAuschwitz.290 It is entirely possible that all doors and windows weredesignated as ‘gas tight’ if they were equipped with felt insulation andwere, therefore, sealed off against air currents, a characteristic not at allcommon in windows for inmate barracks in a concentration camp.291

Pressac himself provides yet another item of proof that the term‘gas chamber’ has no criminal significance in Auschwitz documents.One document states: “1 key for gas chamber ”. Since all ‘gas tight’doors found at Auschwitz, as well as all surviving photographs of suchdoors, show that these doors had no locks, this document must refer to

a door for another type of room, such as a room for the storage of Zyk-lon B, which truly required storage under lock and key.292

The walls of crematoria IV and V, which were built entirely aboveground, were of simple brick masonry. After they were blown up, both buildings were demolished to their foundation walls and concretefoundations. The foundation wall of crematorium V, which is approximately 1 m high, is supposed to have been rebuilt.293 The founda-tion wall of crematorium IV, which is approximately 50 cm high, is

also supposed to have been rebuilt out of other rubble at a later time.56

Even these ruins can still speak to us, even if, in this case, only theconcrete foundations are authentic, since everything else is probablynot authentic. Another technical precondition for the use of the roomsalleged to have been homicidal ‘gas chambers’ would be that it would

(online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html).290 W. Rademacher, op. cit. (note 239), p. 80; J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 451.291 At least the windows of those inmate barracks still accessible today in Birkenau have been

installed in a very sloppy way, so that the wind blows intensely through the gaps. It is, how-ever, questionable whether these barracks are authentic or were rebuilt after the war.292 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 456.293 Ibid., p. 390.



5. AUSCHWITZ

139

have to have been rendered impossible for the victims on the inside toget anywhere near the introduction hatches, since otherwise they couldhave simply pushed the SS man off the ladder while he was throwing

the Zyklon B into the chamber; they could then have attempted to es-cape. A U-shaped, solid steel grid construction anchored in the floor and in the masonry of the walls with steel hoop anchors spread out intodovetails would have been necessary to keep the victims on the insideat arm’s length from the hatches. The concrete floors of these roomssurviving today, however, make it clear that nothing of the sort wasever anchored in the floor.

5.4.3. Farmhouses 1 and 2According to eyewitness accounts, there are supposed to have been two farmhouses (sometimes referred to as bunkers 1 and 2), lo-cated west-north west of the Birkenau camp, which were convertedinto homicidal ‘gas chambers’. Their location and construction are not,however, exactly described. Pressac mentions contradictory eyewitnessreports in this regard.294 Relating to the testimony of P. Broad, for ex-ample, he writes.: “[…] not exploitable […] , since it has been rewrit-

ten by and for the Poles […]”, and: “ It is impossible to make a synthe- sis of all these accounts”. Höß’s report relating to the characteristicsand location of these buildings is only superficial.295 According to re-marks in the judgment to the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial,296 the homi-cidal mass gassings are supposed to have taken place in a manner simi-lar to those in the chambers of crematoria IV and V, described above.This procedure is clarified by the testimony of Richard Böck,297 and, toa certain extent, by Milton Buki,298 Rudolf Höß, Szlama Dragon, Mau-rice Benroubi, Moshe Maurice Garbarz, Johann Paul Kremer (at theFrankfurt Auschwitz trial), and André Lettich.299

Pressac has published a photograph of what are alleged to be the

294 Ibid., pp. 161ff.295 R. Höß, in: M. Broszat (ed.), Kommandant in Auschwitz, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart

1958.296 Judgment of the so-called Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63, p. 99; see note 83.297 Interrogation of the eyewitness R. Böck during pre-trial investigations for the so-called Frank-

furt Auschwitz Trial: Staatsanwaltschaft beim LG Frankfurt (Main), Strafsache beim Schwur-

gericht Frankfurt (Main) gegen Baer und Andere wegen Mordes, ref. 4 Js 444/59, sheets6878ff. Quoted: sheet 6881f.298 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 163.299 See also J. Graf, Auschwitz. Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen, op. cit. (note 43).




140

remains of the foundation walls of farmhouse 2.300 According to analy-ses of Allied air photographs, there was only temporarily a building inthe vicinity of the location ascribed to farmhouse 2; there is no trace of

farmhouse 1.252,301

The extermination of the Hungarian Jews is supposed to have been underway when the air photos were taken, withmany thousands of victims per day and strongly smoking cremations inlarge open ditches precisely in the area analyzed.302 There is no trace of large cremation ditches, large fires giving off copious smoke, or largestockpiles of fuel. Only on air photos made during the winter of 1944/1945, a few mass graves can be seen west of crematorium III— probably for the victims of the chaotic circumstances in the camp after the Germans started to shut down and dismantle the equipment in fallof 1944 during their withdrawal.303

Recently discovered documents prove that one of these farm-houses actually existed—and was used for disinfestation. The SS, in particular, was prohibited from carrying on the disinfestation of per-sonal effects with Zyklon B inside the camp whenever there was asafety risk. The conversion of a farmhouse, which was located outsidethe camp, and whose utilization as provisional HCN disinfestation in-stallations would not have involved any safety risk for the camp itself,

could have resulted from this difficult situation. Several documents arenow available which refer to an “existing building” outside of con-struction section B III, in which a bath installation and sauna were to be installed.304

In late 2001, several European newspapers reported that an Italianscholar had discovered the ‘bunker 1’ in Birkenau.305 As C. Mattognohas shown, however, this is nothing but a hoax. The farmhouse alleg-edly identified as the old bunker is at a totally different location than

the alleged bunker 1 supposedly was, and it was never anything else but a farmhouse.306

300 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 176.301 Pfeiffer, Hansa Luftbild GmbH, aerial photographic analysis of Allied photograph dated Aug.

25, 1944 (note 248), letter dated July 17, 1991; J. Konieczny, The Soviets, But Not the West-ern Allies, Should Have Bombed the Auschwitz Camp, Polish Historical Society, unpublished

paper.302 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 253.303 See J.C. Ball, in E. Gauss, op. cit. (note 252), p. 283.304

TCIDK 502-1-24-77, Nov. 30, 1942; 502-1-24-33, Dec. 3, 1942; 502-1-332-46a, Jan. 9, 1943;502-1-26-66, April 9, 1943; 502-1-238-10, Sept. 30, 1943.305 Le Monde, Nov. 20, 2001; Bild , Nov. 20, 2001; Corriere della Sera, Nov. 21, 2001, p. 35.306 C. Mattogno, “ Die ‘Entdeckung’ des ‘Bunkers 1’ von Birkenau: alte und neue Betrügereien”,



5. AUSCHWITZ

141

5.4.4. The Drainage System in Birkenau

5.4.4.1. Background: Eyewitness Accounts

J.-C. Pressac quotes various eyewitnesses claiming that due to therestricted capacity of the Auschwitz crematoria, a large portion of the bodies of the victims of homicidal mass gassing were cremated inopen-air pits. These pits were allegedly located north of crematoriumV as well as close to the farmhouses (bunkers) 1 and 2. The size of these pits is described as roughly 20-60 m long, 3-7 m wide, and 1.5 to3 m deep.307

5.4.4.2. The Ground Water Table in BirkenauIn his expert report, Fredrick Leuchter pointed out that due to the

high ground water table he found in Birkenau in 1988, it would have been impossible to dig deep pits and to light and maintain a fire inthem.26 The reason for the high ground water table is that the Birkenaucamp lies in the immediate vicinity of the confluence of the Sola river into the Vistula river. A few hundred meters away from the camp onefinds today swampy meadows.

Leuchter, however, did not investigate the important question of whether the ground water table was similarly high in 1942-1944, whenthe events attested to by the witnesses took place. It has been pointedout that the Birkenau camp had a sophisticated grid work of drainagecanals which lowered the ground water table.308 This drainage systemis still functioning fairly well to this day. Whereas the ground water table around the camp is basically right at the surface, it is today low-ered to 60 to 70 cm under the surface within the camp, obvious, for

example, from Figure 57. The photo was taken on August 15, 1991,during a long period of drought. It shows a construction trench in frontof the Zentralsauna located in the western part of the camp.

But how effective was this drainage system in 1942-1944, andmost importantly, how effective was it in the area north of cremato-rium V and in the vicinity of the alleged farmhouses, which were lo-

VffG 6(2) (2002), pp. 139-145 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/2002/2/Mattogno139-145.html);

Engl. see the presentation of Russ Granata, “The ‘Discovery’ of ‘Bunker 1’ of Birkenau”,www.vho.org/~granata/Discovery.html307 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 162-164, 171, 177308 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 209, drainage plan POW camp Birkenau.




142

cated outside of thecamp’s drainage sys-tem?

There are two pieces of circumstantialevidence indicating thatthe water table was notmuch different thenthan it is today. Thefirst evidence is thewell known small pondin the vicinity of crema-torium IV, which issupposed to have ex-isted the same way dur-ing the war. If thedrainage system hadlowered the water table by several meters, the pond next to cremato-

rium IV, contrary tomany witness state-ments, would havedried up. This provesthe unchanged water table from then untilnow. The second evi-dence is the subterra-

nean location of the morgues of crematoriums II and III, as well assome of the building sections of the Zentralsauna. They all were con-structed by insulating the buildings’ basements from intruding water with a waterproof layer of tar, which indicates that there was a need to protect against such water in the first place. Also, since the drainageditches in the camp are only 1 to 1.5 meters deep, they could not havelowered the water table to less than one meter. This maximum value,though, can only be achieved in the immediate vicinity of the ditches.

In complementary studies, Michael Gärtner and Werner Rade-

Fig. 57: Then and today—the unchanged ground water state in the Birkenau camp, herein midsummer 1991, in a construction trenchin front of the Zentralsauna, approximately 70

cm. Incinerations of corpses in pits many meters deep, in accordance with witness

testimony, were not possible.



5. AUSCHWITZ

143

macher on the one hand182 and Carlo Mattogno on the other hand309 have shown, with a vast amount of contemporary German documentsdealing with the camp authorities’ problems caused by the high water

table, that between the end of 1941 and middle of 1944, the water tablein Birkenau in general and outside the camp perimeter in particular was very high, coming close or even reaching the surface and turningthe entire area into a swampy region. All three authors showed thatconstruction on buildings with basements was possible only by perma-nently pumping off ground water, and Mattogno even found docu-ments expressively forbidding the digging of pits for outhouse latrines, because this would contaminate the drinking water of the entireAuschwitz region. Mass incinerations of corpses in deep pits, of course, would have contaminated the drinking water as well, hencewould never have been permitted.

5.4.4.3. Open-Air Incineration in PitsIn general, it is of course possible to burn corpses in open-air pits,

though it certainly takes more time and fuel than any cremation in acrematorium, and it also leaves many more traces due to incomplete

combustion. In 1999, Dr. Myroslaw Dragan conducted an experimentalincineration of an 80 lb. deer in a pit roughly 1 m deep, 70 cm wide,and 1.2 m long. This incineration with a relatively small amount of wood lasted some 4-5 hours and was almost completely successful.310 Dr. Dragan found out that for open-air incinerations, small, narrowholes are advantageous over large, wide holes or, even worse, crema-tions on ground level, since the soil walls of a pit act like the walls of acrematorium oven, storing and reflecting a great deal of the heat pro-duced by the fire—provided that the soil has a considerable amount of clay stabilizing the wall of the pit, and, of course, that no ground water flows into the pit and extinguishes the fire.

The situation in Birkenau, however, was drastically different fromthat. Not only did the witnesses claim that those pits were very wide,

309 “‘Verbrennungsgruben’ und Grundwasserstand in Birkenau”, VffG 6(4) (2002), pp. 421-424(online: www.vho.org/VffG/2002/4/Mattogno421-424.html); Engl.: “‘Incineration Pits’ and Ground Water Level in Birkenau”, The Revisionist , 1(1) (2003), pp. 13-16 (online:

www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Mattogno13-16.html).310 Only small pieces of the skull were left over which were located in a corner of the pit. Com-munications of Dr. M. Dragan, whom I helped to investigate the carcass’ remains in June1999.




144

but as Gärtner, Rademacher, and Carlo Mattogno have shown, the ex-tremely high ground water table in the areas around the alleged loca-tion of those cremation pits was so high that it would have been impos-sible to dig such deep pits, arrange hundreds of corpses and fuel inthem, and maintain a fire for many hours without these pits quicklyfilling with water. These findings show clearly that the attested burningof corpses in pits many meters deep was impossible under such condi-tions, since these pits would have filled up with ground water rather quickly.

It is known that in Birkenau the corpses which had accumulatedduring the typhus epidemic of the summer of 1942 were first buried inmass graves. Due to the danger of the contamination of the ground wa-ter, however, they had to be exhumed in the spring of 1943. Since thenew cremation facilities still were not capable of functioning at thattime, it is possible that at least a portion of the corpses were burned onfuneral pyres. For this purpose, as a rule, one removes the turf and the

upper layer of topsoil in order to preserve them from damage and toabsorb the ashes of the wood and the corpses. But holes many meters

Fig. 58: White circles: possible sites of old mass graves of typhus victims in

Auschwitz.



5. AUSCHWITZ

145

deep are not dug.Indeed, one can unearth in excavations west of the Birkenau camp

ashes and bone splinters (whether from humans or cattle remains open)

to the depth of several decimeters, intensively mixed with all kinds of refuse (glass and porcelain shards, slag, bits of iron, etc.). Apparentlythis place served as a rubbish heap for the camp under German admini-stration and/or after the war under Polish administration.

In his detailed study of aerial photos of the Birkenau camp made by the allied surveillance planes, J.C. Ball has revealed that at no pointin time in the summer and autumn of 1944 in the camp or in its envi-rons were large incineration pits—and fuel stockpiles necessary for that—to be seen, let alone flames and smoke, as they are repeatedlyattested to.311 He did, however, locate the places were mass graves hadexisted (see Fig. 58).303

5.5. Construction ConclusionsEven the most primitive temporary disinfestation installations—

whether in the initial period of the life of Auschwitz camp or else-where—were always equipped with a ventilation and heating system,the last being, of course, useful but not absolutely necessary. But noroom possessing no ventilation system need even be seriously consid-ered as a room for fumigation with poisonous gases, whether for lice or human beings. Homicidal ‘gas chambers’ must furthermore beequipped, apart from the entry doors, with an opening for the introduc-tion of the poison gas material from the outside; this is not absolutelynecessary for disinfestation installations, but is nevertheless useful. Itmust be concluded, therefore, that no installation possessing neither a

poison gas introduction device from the outside, nor any possibility of ventilation, can be taken seriously as a homicidal ‘gas chamber’. If oneconsiders the rooms discussed above in a summary manner, the resultsare shown in Table 2.

Not taken into consideration in the above, among other things, isthe fact that hypothetical homicidal ‘gas chambers’ would have to beescape-proof, that their equipment had to be panic-proof, that their ventilation would have to be efficient enough for homicidal purposes,

311 J.C. Ball, op. cit. (note 43).




146

which, in view of the above, was not the case, and finally that theevacuation of the poison gas into the environment after the execution

required special measures in order to avoid that people close to the ‘gaschambers’—both inside the building as well as in its vicinity—get hurtor even killed.

Although the literature is generally unanimous as to the equipmentof the rooms in crematoria IV and V, the information is, to a certainextent, speculative, due to the lack of documents and material evi-dence. The same is true for the information relating to the farmhouses,on which there are practically no documents available.

Fortunately, it is precisely the one ‘gas chamber’ in which thelargest number of people was allegedly killed by poison gas during theThird Reich which has remained almost entirely intact: morgue 1 of crematorium II. Contrary to all eyewitness testimony, this cellar, dur-ing the period of its operation, possessed no Zyklon B introductionholes in the roof. It is only logical and consequent to transfer theseconclusions also to the mirror-symmetrically built, but otherwise iden-tical crematorium III, even though we do not possess any physical evi-dence for this due to the almost complete destruction of the roof of itsmorgue 1. If this is so, those rooms cannot have been used as locationsfor mass homicide using poison gas, as alleged by witnesses.

When one considers the technical circumstances prevailing in andaround Auschwitz, in the broadest sense, one becomes aware of theabsurdity of the entire claim of homicidal mass gassings. The campmanagement was fully aware of the methods and technical precondi-tions for Zyklon B disinfestation, and was even informed as to the lat-est developments in the related technology.143 But instead of using

these methods, it allegedly had recourse, for mass gassing purposes, toextremely crude methods, particularly where bunkers I and II, and,

Table 2: Equipment and suitability of actual or alleged ‘gas chambers’

Equipment/Suitability

Building

Poison gasintroduction

Heating VentilationSuitability asdisinfestation

chamber

Suitability asexecutionchamber

Disinfestation chambers

yesif with means of

introduction

Crematorium I × × hardly/perhaps no

Crematoria II and III × × perhaps no

Crematoria IV and V × hardly hardly

Farmhouses I and II × / × / hardly/perhaps no = present or possible; = possibly present; × = not present



5. AUSCHWITZ

147

later, crematoria IV and V, were concerned:Allegedly, hundreds or thousands of people were killed with

highly poisonous gas in rooms,

– which had walls and ceilings made of a material absorbing hugeamounts of the poison gas and letting it penetrate; – which did not have escape-proof doors and windows; – which did not have panic-proof equipment; – which did not have technically gas tight doors and shutters; – which had no provision to quickly release and distribute the poi-

son gas; – which had no effective device to ventilate or otherwise render

ineffective the poison gas after the end of the execution.At the same time, the most modern disinfestation installations

were being built all over German-occupied Europe, – which had walls and ceilings covered with gastight coatings; – which were equipped with escape-proof doors and had no win-

dows; – which had technically gas tight doors; – which had devices to quickly release and distribute the poison

gas;

– which had effective devices to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the end of the gassing procedure.

There were never any perceptible delivery problems for these in-stallations. In the Auschwitz main camp, the latest technology for dis-infestation using HCN was even incorporated (cf. chapter 5.2.3.5.),while the Zentralsauna at Birkenau was even equipped with the mostmodern hot air disinfestation technology! And to top it all: the Ger-mans even invented the microwave technology, which is so well-

known today, to kill lice! They erected these installations, which werestill very expensive at that time, in Auschwitz camp, to save inmatelives! And we are supposed to believe that the Germans were incapableof installing adequate technical equipment for Zyklon B gassings in atleast one of their alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’! Can anything bemore insulting to the human mind?

So much for the claim that homicidal ‘gas chambers’ existed atAuschwitz. We have also proven that the largest room, the one alleg-

edly most-often used as a homicidal ‘gas chamber’, could not have been used for that purpose as stated by alleged eyewitnesses. Together with the untruthful witnesses to a homicidal ‘gas chamber’ in the Main




148

Camp (see chapter 5.3.), and in view of the fact that there is no docu-mentary indication of a criminal use of these rooms, we must concludethat there is no credible proof, and no “criminal trace”, in support of

the claimed existence of homicidal ‘gas chambers’ in Auschwitz.Considering these facts, it can not really come as a surprise that fi-nally even the mainstream historians and media are taking notice of them: In May 2002, Fritjof Meyer, a senior editor at Germany’s larg-est, left-wing weekly magazine Der Spiegel , stated in an article thatdocuments and witness statements regarding the alleged gas chambersin the crematoria II and III of Birkenau

“rather indicate that attempts were made in March and April of

1943 to use the mortuary cellars for mass murder in the early summer of 1943. Apparently, the tests were not successful […] The actually commit-ted genocide probably took place mainly in the two converted farm-houses outside of the camp.”312

In other words: there is a tendency to abandon those locationswhich Prof. Dr. R. van Pelt called “the absolute center ” in the “ geo-

graphy of atrocities” (see page 91), or even the Birkenau crematoriaaltogether, since, according to Meyer the genocide is now supposed to

have taken place mainly in those ominous farmhouses or bunkers of which we possess hardly any documentary evidence.Following Meyer, the final destruction of the corpses of the

alleged victims of mass murder is now supposed to have happenedalmost exclusively by means of open-air incinerations in deep pits.However, all claims made regarding the alleged open-air incinerationof corpses in deep pits are obviously untrue because no traces of suchincinerations can be found on contemporary air-photos, and becausethe high water table in Birkenau would have prevented the

maintenance of fires in deep pits.Those readers who take no interest in the chemical problems relat-

ing to the alleged ‘gas chambers’ in Auschwitz may skip the followingchapter 6. Prior to a solution to the problem of how the poisonous preparation was introduced into the presumed ‘gas chambers’, further speculation as to the manner and method of the murders, and their pos-

312 F. Meyer, “ Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz”, Osteuropa, 52(5) (2002), pp. 631-641, here p.

632; for critical reviews of these artciles, see Germar Rudolf, “Cautious Mainstream Revision-ism”, The Revisionist , 1(1) (2003), pp. 23-30 (online: www.vho.org/tr/2003/Rudolf23-30.html); Carlo Mattogno, “ Auschwitz. The new Revisions by Fritjof Meyer ”, The Revisionist ,1(1) (2003), pp. 30-37 (online: www.vho.org/tr/2003/Mattogno30-37.html).



5. AUSCHWITZ

149

sible chemical traces, remains a mere academic exercise, with no basisin reality. Our study of Auschwitz could, therefore, conclude here.

However, because the chemical questions involved attracted so

much attention, caused the hottest controversies, and stirred the mostintensive debates, detailed remarks are nevertheless in order, below,about the chemical questions, raised by Faurisson and Leuchter, relat-ing to the formation of residues (Iron Blue) caused by the reactivity of hydrogen cyanide.



151

6. Formation and Stability of Iron Blue

6.1. IntroductionHundreds of thousands of people are claimed to have been killed

in the alleged Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ by hydrogen cyanide in theform of the product Zyklon B®. The question which now arises is thefollowing: could this poisonous gas leave chemical traces, which could perhaps be detected in these alleged chemical slaughterhouses?

If hydrogen cyanide (HCN), the reactive compound in Zyklon B,were only bound to the walls by adsorption (adhesion),313 there wouldnot be any detectable residues today anymore, due to the volatility of hydrogen cyanide (boiling point: 25.7°C); all the hydrogen cyanideinvolved would long since have evaporated.

But if one assumes that the hydrogen cyanide, during fumigation,would combine with certain materials in the masonry to create other,considerably more stable compounds, then one might anticipate the

possible existence of chemical residues even today.The reaction products of interest to us in this respect are the saltsof hydrogen cyanide, called cyanides,314 in particular, the iron cyanidegroup, formed by a compound of iron and cyanide. Iron occurs univer-sally in nature. It is iron which gives brick its red color, sand its ochrecolor, and clay its color ranging from yellowish to reddish-brown.More precisely, we are speaking of iron oxide, popularly known as‘rust’. Basically, all walls consist of at least 1% rust, as a result of sand, gravel, clay, and cement, of which the wall is constructed.

The iron cyanides have long been known for their extraordinarystability, one of them having achieved particular fame as one of themost commonly used blue pigments during the last three centuries:

313 Ab sorption and Ad sorption are not the same! Ab sorption is the incorporation (sometimes evenconsumption) of a matter into a medium (light is absorbed/consumed by a pigment, gas is ab-sorbed/dissolves into a liquid), whereas Ad sorption is the adhesion of matter onto a—usuallysolid—surface (dust on furniture, steam on windscreen, vapours on any solid surface...);

Adsorption is further subdivided in chemisorption, in which the matter is bound to a surface

by chemical bonds, and physisorption, in which the bonding is only a physical effect. Thetransition between both is fluent.314 For simplicity’s sake, ‘cyanide’ is frequently understood to mean only the anionic part of the

cyanide salts, the cyanide ion, CN – .




152

Iron Blue, also often referred to as Prussian Blue.315

6.2. Instances of Damages to BuildingsChapter 1.3. contained a discussion of an instance of damage to achurch which occurred in 1976 in Bavaria, Germany. In the many hun-dreds of thousands of fumigations which have been carried out since1920, there cannot, as a rule, have been any complications, otherwisethe procedure would have been very rapidly abandoned. The case inquestion was, therefore, an exception. But what exactly was it thatmade this church an exception?

Different scenery. 1939-1945. In the camps of the Third Reich,hundreds of thousands of people—Jews, political prisoners, criminals,‘anti-socials,’ and prisoners of war—were crammed together. To stemthe raging epidemics, attempts were made, not always with great suc-cess, to kill the carriers of disease, particularly head lice. This wasdone in particular with hydrogen cyanide, Zyklon B. This was some-times done in chambers professionally designed for such purposes,sometimes ordinary rooms were equipped for such purposes in an aux-iliary manner, and provisionally used for disinfestation. Many of thecamps in the Third Reich were leveled at the end of the war or after-wards; in other camps the existing buildings were torn down and the buildings materials used for the reconstruction of the ruined cities. Afew buildings, however, remain intact today. The interiors of these buildings look as in Fig. 59-66 (see also the color picture section in themiddle of this book).

From the remarks of a Polish research team having conducted in-vestigations on behalf of the Auschwitz Museum, we also know that

the disinfestation chamber in the Auschwitz main camp is colored aspotty blue.56,57 To my knowledge, only the Zyklon B disinfestationchambers of Dachau camp (DEGESCH circulation chambers) exhibitno blue pigmentation, because the walls were professionally coatedwith a paint impermeable to gas and water.

315

Iron Blue is the ISO designation (ISO 2495) for iron cyanide blue pigments of various compo-sition, which are also known as Berlin Blue, Turnbull’s Blue, Prussian Blue, Vossen Blue®,Milori Blue, Paris Blue, French Blue, China Blue, Bronze Blue, Steel Blue, Ink Blue, amongothers.



6. F ORMATION AND S TABILITY OF I RON B LUE

153

Fig. 59: Interior northwest room inthe Zyklon B disinfestation wing of

BW 5a in the Birkenau camp.(© Karl Philipp)

Fig. 60: Exterior southwest wall of the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of

BW 5b in the Birkenau camp.(© Karl Philipp)

Fig. 61: Zyklon B disinfestationinstallation, chamber III, of barrack

41 in Majdanek camp. (© C. Mattogno316

)

Fig. 62: Zyklon B disinfestationinstallation, east wall of chamber III

of barrack 41 in Majdanek camp. (© C. Mattogno316

)

Fig. 63: Large Zyklon B disinfestationchamber, ceiling, barrack 41 in Ma-

jdanek camp. (© C. Mattogno316

)

Fig. 64: Zyklon B disinfestation instal-lation, chambers II and III (exterior wall), of barrack 41 in Majdanek

camp. (© Carlo Mattogno317

)

316 Taken from the book by Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek , op. cit. (note 43), photos

XIII, XIV, XIX (online: www.vho.org/D/Majdanek/MR.html); see also the photo in MichaelBerenbaum, The World Must Know, Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1993, p. 138.317 Taken from the book by Ernst Gauss (Ed., alias G. Rudolf), Dissecting the Holocaust , op. cit.

(note 22), color page, with kind permission by Carlo Mattogno.




154

Fig. 65: Zyklon B disinfestationchamber in Stutthof camp, interior view taken from the south door.

(© Carlo Mattogno318

)

Fig. 66: Zyklon B disinfestationchamber in Stutthof camp, east side, exterior. (© Carlo Mattogno

318 )

It seems therefore that a blue pigmentation of masonry is no ex-ception, but rather a rule, particularly where unprotected masonry isrepeatedly exposed to hydrogen cyanide over long periods. The large-scale, long-term use of hydrogen cyanide for vermin control in disin-festation chambers only began, in practice, with the onset of the Sec-ond World War. And with the dissolution of the National Socialist prisoner camps, the confiscation of the corporation having manufac-tured and marketed Zyklon B (the I.G. Farbenindustrie AG), and the

invention of DDT at the end of World War II, this large-scale use of hydrogen cyanide ended just as abruptly. No one cared about any ‘in-stances of building damage’ having occurred in the former NationalSocialist disinfestation chambers in this period. The question never arose in the literature… until Frederick A. Leuchter came along.

The following is an attempt to demonstrate the manner in whichthese blue pigments, referred to as Iron Blue, came to be formed in themasonry during fumigation with HCN, and the conditions favorable totheir formation.

There have been many publications on this chemical compound inthe last five decades, which were perused and will be summarized inthe following in relation to our topic. In so doing, attention was di-rected at:

1) the circumstances which lead to the formation of Iron Blue, and2) the long-term stability of Iron Blue under the existing circum-

stances.

318 Taken from the book by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Das KL Stutthof , op. cit. (note 43), photos 13 & 14 (online: www.vho.org/D/Stutthof).




155

When writing the initial versions of this expert report intended to be presented at German courts of law, I was extremely anxious not tomake any errors, because I knew that the topic was extremely contro-

versial. As a consequence, I over-examined several chemical aspectsinvolved, some of which can be understood only by chemical experts.Others aspects are not really necessary for an understanding of the coreissue. In order to have a complete English version of my expert report,I nevertheless decided to include all the material I accumulated over the years. Those sections, however, which are considered of marginalinterest or of interest to experts only, I have given headlines alwaysstarting with “ Excursus”. For some readers it might be advisable toskip these chapters. They will most likely not miss anything.319

But first a short description of the starting substance, hydrogencyanide.

6.3. Properties of Hydrogen Cyanide, HCNHydrogen cyanide, a colorless liquid, is similar, in many of its

physical properties, to water.320 This similarity also explains the limit-less solubility of HCN in water and its strong tendency towardsabsorption (dissolution) in water. The equilibrium concentration321 of hydrogen cyanide in water is investigated in more detail in chapter 6.5.3.

The opinion is often expressed that, because gaseous hydrogencyanide is approximately 5% lighter than air, it must separate from air and rise. Hydrogen cyanide gas is, however, only slightly lighter thanair and does not separate, because of the thermal movement of everygas particle. To clarify this, reference must be made to the principal

components of air: The main component of air, nitrogen, 78% by vol-ume, is 8% heavier than hydrogen cyanide gas. If a separation took place between hydrogen cyanide gas and nitrogen, it would all themore occur between the two main components of air, since oxygen(21% of air by volume) is 15% heavier than nitrogen. This would have

319 I also want to point out that I did not include all this academic, self-serving ivory tower chatter in order to impress people. I was simply advised by many friends, supporters, and adversaries

to include all my material since back-references to my German original is no help to mostEnglish language speakers, of whom only a tiny fraction can read German.320 High polarity, low molecular mass, possibility of formation of hydrogen bonds.321 Concentration is the number of parts per volume.




156

as a result that all the oxygen of the earth’s atmosphere would settle inthe lower fifth of the atmosphere, as a consequence of which the entiresurface of the earth would get oxidized, i.e., burn. This obviously doesnot happen. Thus, a spontaneous separation of hydrogen cyanide gaswould never take place in air.

The 5% lesser density of pure hydrogen cyanide gas compared toair (this corresponds to a density difference of 35°C warm air as compared to 20°C warm air) can however very well lead to a density con-vection, when pure gaseous hydrogen cyanide is released in a locationwith the same temperature as the ambient air. The gas would then riseslowly, but gradually mix with the ambient air. But to conclude fromthis that hydrogen cyanide vapors always rise, would be an incorrectconclusion. At 15°C, for example, on physicochemical grounds, noconcentrations higher than 65% of hydrogen cyanide can occur in air

(see Graph 1); the density of such a mixture lies only approximately3% below that of air. Furthermore, a great deal of energy is withdrawnfrom the ambient air by the evaporating hydrogen cyanide. Conse-quently, the ambient temperature sinks until exactly as much energy istransported to the liquid (adsorbed) HCN as needed for the deceleratedevaporation at the corresponding lower temperature. It is thereforetheoretically possible for hydrogen cyanide vapors containing littleHCN, but which are cold, to be denser, that is, heavier than the ambi-

ent air.Graph 1 shows the equilibrium percentage of hydrogen cyanide in

air as a function of temperature. Even at 0°C, the percentage still lies at

322 W. Braker, A.L. Mossman, Matheson Gas Data Book , Matheson Gas Products, East Ruther-ford 1971, p. 301. I have left out some of the less interesting dimensions in this connection:heat capacity (20.9°C): 2.625 J g-1 K -1 (Water=4.187 J g-1 K -1); dielectricity constant (20°C):114 (Water=78.5); evaporation heat: 28 kJ mol-1; evaporation entropy: 190 J mol-1 K -1; spon-taneous combustion temperature: 538°C; flash point: -17.8°C; regarding dielectricity con-

stants, see: R.C. Weast (ed.), Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 66th Ed., CRC Press, BocaRaton, Florida 1986, E 40. However, under normal conditions (1 atm, 25°C), hydrogen cya-nide is not a gas.

323 1 vol.% is 10,000 ppm (for HCN, roughly 12 g/m³)

Table 3: Physical Properties of HCN322 Molecular weight 27.026 g mol-1 Boiling point (1 atm) 25.7°C

Melting point -13.24°CSpecific density of the gas at 31°C (air = 1) 0.947Explosion limits in air 6-41 Vol.%323




157

approximately36% by volume.Condensation of

HCN on sur-rounding objectswould occur onlyif the percentagerose over theequilibrium per-centage (the so-called dew point).Since in all caseshere under con-sideration, a ma-ximum concentra-tion of 10% HCN in air would only be reached for a short period of time close to the source of HCN (the Zyklon B carrier), no condensa-tion of HCN on walls can be expected. An exception is, however, theso-called capillary condensation, which can occur in finely porous ma-terials such as cement mortar.324

Hydrogen cyanide forms explosive mixtures with air in the rangeof 6 to 41% by volume. With strong initial ignition, its explosive ef-fects can be compared with nitro-glycerin.325 In the applications under discussion here, a proportion of 6% by volume and more can bereached in the immediate vicinity of the source, which suffices for lo-cal blow ups at the most. Hence, only inappropriately high concentra-tions can lead to explosive mixtures, as shown by a corresponding ac-cident in 1947.16 With correct application quantities and concentra-

tions, the technical literature indicates that there is practically no dan-ger of explosion.326

324 The lowered vapor pressure caused by adsorption effects in a narrow hollow space leads toearly condensation.

325

The usual explosive in dynamite. Cf. Wilhelm Foerst (ed.), Ullmanns Encyklopädie der tech-nischen Chemie, vol. 5, Urban und Schwarzenberg, Munich 31954, p. 629.326 Willibald Schütz, “ Explosionsgefährlichkeit gasförmiger Entwesungsmittel ”, Reichsarbeits-

blatt , Teil III (Arbeitsschutz no. 6), no. 17/18 (1943), pp. 198-207, here p. 201.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Temperature [°C]

v a p o r p r e s s u r e H C N [ a t m ]

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

v a p o r p r e s s u r e H C N [ % ]

boiling temperature

Graph 1: Vapor pressure of hydrogen cyanide in percentage of air pressure as a function of

temperature.




158

6.4. Composition of Iron Blue

6.4.1. Overview

The stoichiometric composition of an ideal Iron Blue crystal is:Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3

It is characteristic that the iron in this compound is present in twodifferent oxidation states: Fe2+ (here in square brackets) and Fe3+ (hereon the outer left). The interaction between these two different iron ionsalso gives rise to the blue color of this compound (Charge-Transfer-Complex). The actual composition can be quite variable, depending onthe stoichiometry on formation and the presence of impurities, in

which case the color varies between dark blue and greenish-blue tones.

6.4.2. ExcursusIt was with support of the Mösbauer spectroscopy327 that a long-

lasting argument could be decided:328,329 Turnbull’s Blue,Fe3[Fe(CN)6]2, is actually the same as Berlin Blue, Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3, evenif the summation formulas suggest they are different. As a matter of fact, the summation formula of Berlin Blue is closest to the reality: In

the ideal Iron Blue crystal, 16 molecules of coordination water are in-cluded:

Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3 · x H2O (x=14 to 16)

Today it is known that the ‘soluble’ Iron Blue which frequently isreferred to in older literature, is mainly a substance with the composi-tion MeFeIII[FeII(CN6)] · x H2O, where Me is the counter ion to the opposite cyanoferrate, [Fe(CN)6]

3-/4-, mostly potassium (K +) or ammo-nium (NH4

+).According to Buser,329 ‘soluble’ Iron Blue is formed mainly dur-

ing quick formation and precipitation of the pigments, leading to theinclusion of large amounts of water and potassium or ammonium ions

327 Impulseless resonance absorption of γ-quants (gamma radiation) from a radioactive isotope,here Cobalt: 57Co 57Fe + γ (main quant: 122 keV; quant used for spectroscopy has a differ-ent energy)

328 E. Fluck, W. Kerler, W. Neuwirth, Z. anorg. allg. Chem. 333 (1964), pp. 235-247; J.F. Dun-can, J. Chem. Soc. 1963, pp. 1120-1125.

329

H.J. Buser, D. Schwarzenbach, W. Peter, A. Ludi, Inorg. Chem. 16 (1977), pp. 2704-2710.Iron Blue single crystals of high purity and homogeneity were obtained by slow oxidation of asolution of Fe[FeII(CN)6] in concentrated (!) HClaq. in air. If in the presence of molar amountsof Kalium only some 2% inclusions were observed.




159

in the extremely voluminous precipitate. The resulting crystal is there-fore very faulty and more appropriately called a polymer.330 By filtra-tion, drying and intensive grinding, however, this very inhomogene-

ous, polluted Iron Blue can be transformed into a pigment which isonly hardly colloidal dispersible.331 This ‘soluble’ Iron Blue is notsoluble in the original sense of the word, but can more easily be col-loidally dispersed than the ‘insoluble’ Iron Blue, which is very impor-tant for its application as a pigment.332,333

However, these colloids are very instable and precipitate easilywhen salts are added.334 According to Buser,329 even in presence of high concentrations of potassium ions, almost pure ‘insoluble’ IronBlue can be obtained, if the formation process is proceeding slowlyenough. In case of deeper interest about the structure one might consultthe following literature.329,335

6.5. Formation of Iron Blue

6.5.1. OverviewWe are only concerned, in this connection, with how Iron Blue

arises from hydrogen cyanide and iron compounds in building materi-als. In building materials, the iron is generally present in trivalent form(Fe3+), in the form of ‘rust’.

330 Originally, this term was used only in organic chemistry for chainlike connected, sometimesalso branched attachments of equal segments.

331 Dispersion (lat.: dispersere, distribute) are distribution of two different phases within eachother. They are called colloids (gr.: gluelike) if the particles are between 10-8 and 10-7 m small.Such a mixture in liquids scatters the light (Tyndall effect), is thus not clear. But due to elec-

trostatic repulsion (equally charged particles), colloids do not tend to coagulate and precipi-tate.Suspension: (lat.: to float) are coarsely dispersed system with particle sizes bigger than 10-6 m.

332 R.E. Kirk, D.F. Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 13, 3. ed., Wiley &Sons, New York 1979, pp. 765-771; J.A. Sistino, in: Peter A. Lewis (ed.), Pigment Handbook ,Vol. 1, Wiley and Sons, New York 1974, pp. 401-407; A.F. Holleman, N. Wiberg, Lehrbuchder Anorganischen Chemie, de Gruyter, Berlin 1001985, p. 1143

333 H. Ferch, H. Schäfer, Schriftenreihe Pigmente Nr. 77 , Degussa AG, Frankfurt 1990.334 K.A. Hofmann, Anorganische Chemie, Vieweg, Braunschweig 211973, p. 677; B.N. Gosh,

K.C. Ray, Trans. Far. Soc. 53 (1957), pp. 1659-1661; E.F. Zhel’vis, Y.M. Glazman, Ukrain- skii Khim. Zh. 35 (1969), pp. 766ff.; East European Sci. Abs. 5 (1969), pp. 84f.

335

M.B. Robin, Inorg. Chem. 1 (1962), pp. 337-342; Gmelins Handbuch der AnorganischenChemie, 59 (Fe), B4, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim 1932, pp. 670-732; R.E. Wilde, S.N. Ghosh,B.J. Marshall, Inorg. Chem. 9 (1970), pp. 2512-2516; R.S. Saxena, J. Ind. Chem. Soc. 28(1951), pp. 703-709; A.K. Bhattacharya, J. Ind. Chem. Soc. 28 (1951), pp. 221-224.




160

For the formation of Iron Blue, therefore, a part of this iron must be reduced to bivalent form (Fe2+). The subsequent combination of these different iron ions with CN – to Iron Blue occurs spontaneously

and completely.336

The most probable mechanism337

is one in whichthe cyanide ion itself acts as a reducing agent. The starting point in sodoing is an Fe3+ ion, largely surrounded (complexed) by CN – ions:[Fe(CN)4-6]

(1-3)-. A slightly alkaline environment is favorable to the fi-nal reduction of the iron(III)-ion to iron(II).338

The pigment formation in the case under consideration here is thenorganized in 5 steps:

a) Ad-/absorption of hydrogen cyanide (HCN);313

b) Ionic splitting (electrolytic dissociation)339

of hydrogen cyanidein water to the cyanide ion, which alone can form complexes

336 F. Krleza, M. Avlijas, G. Dokovic, Glap. Hem. Tehnol. Bosne Hercegovine, 23-24 (1977, Vol.Date 1976), pp. 7-13.

337 Photolytic decomposition of the [FeIII(CN)6]3– by means of UV radiation is also conceivable as

an alternative. Since the interior walls of the rooms in question are not exposed to any UV ra-dition, this mechanism is ignored here. See also G. Stochel, Z. Stasicka, Polyhedron 4(11)(1985), pp. 1887-1890; T. Ozeki, K. Matsumoto, S. Hikime, Anal. Chem. 56 (14) (1984), pp.2819-2822; L. Moggi, F. Bolletta, V. Balzani, F. Scandola, J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 28 (1966),

pp. 2589-2598.338 pH value of 9-10 according to M.A. Alich, D.T. Haworth, M.F. Johnson, J. Inorg. Nucl.

Chem. 29 (1967), pp. 1637-1642. Spectroscopic studies of the reaction of hexa-cyanoferrate(III) in water and ethanol. 3.3×10-4 M Fe(NO3)3 were exposed with a cyanide ex-cess of likewise 3.3×10-4 mol l-1. With pH values of approximately 10, all the Fe2[Fe(CN)6]was converted into Iron Blue within 48 hours. Cyanate, the anticipated product of the oxida-tion of the CN – , could not, however, be proven. Perhaps this is further oxidized directly intoCO2. If this mechanism is assumed, the result, purely stoichiometrically, is that an alkalineenvironment must be favorable. This finding is supported by the known fact that hexacyan-oferrate(III) is a strong oxidation agent in alkaline medium and is even able to oxidize triva-lent chrome to hexavalent, therefore, that is, CN – ions must have oxidized very quickly: J.C.

Bailar, Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford 1973, p. 1047.An overly alkaline environment would, however, disturb the complexing of the Fe3+- ion bycyanide, which is then displaced by OH – (Fe(OH)3 then occurs as a by-product) and/or the lat-ter can hardly be displaced from the iron.The driving force in the reduction of the Fe3+ is the considerably more favorable energeticalsituation of the hexacyanoferrate(II) as compared to hexacyanoferrate(III); see, in this regard,R.M. Izatt, G.D. Watt, C.H. Bartholomew, J.J. Christensen, Inorg. Chem. 9 (1970), pp.2019ff. Calorimetric measurements relating to the formation enthalpies of Iron Blue from re-spective educts (in brackets) were as follows:

∆H(Fe2+ + [Fe(CN)6]3-)= -66.128 kJ mol-1; ∆H(Fe3+ + [Fe(CN)6]4-)= 2.197 kJ mol-1.

For this reason, a direct reduction of uncomplexed Fe3+, i.e., not surrounded by cyanide, has

an energy disadvantage and is therefore negligible.339 Dissociation: is the splitting of a compound, in this case into two differently charged ions(heterolytic) in aqueous medium (electrolysis):

HCN + H2O CN – + H3O+




161

with iron;c) Complexing of trivalent iron (Fe3+) to the complex iron(III)-cya-

nide,340 that is, the displacement of oxygen and/or OH – ions in

rust by cyanide ions; b) Reduction of iron(III)-cyanide to iron(II)-cyanide;e) Precipitation of iron(II)-cyanide with trivalent iron as Iron Blue.

The velocity of formation of the pigment can be influenced byvarious factors, which will be considered:

1. Water content of the reaction medium;2. Reactivity of the iron;3. Temperature;

4. Acid content.

6.5.2. Water Content

6.5.2.1. OverviewThe formation of cyanide through absorption and subsequent dis-

sociation of hydrogen cyanide in water is the necessary preconditionfor a reaction with iron compounds, since the hydrogen cyanide itself

exhibits only a low reactivity. All reactions listed in chapter 6.5.1. un-der a)-e) occur almost exclusively in water. Water furthermore ensuresthat the reaction partners—all salts capable of being dissolved in wa-ter—come together in the first place. Finally, the moisture contained inthe building material also acts as a hydrogen cyanide trap, since hydro-gen cyanide dissolves eagerly in water. A relatively high water contentin the masonry will therefore considerably increase the speed of reac-tion.

6.5.2.2. ExcursusThe reason for the low reactivity of HCN compared to the free

cyanide ion is because HCN is less nulceophilic than the free ion.341 Aside from the dissociation of hydrogen cyanide in water, the process

340 Correct: hexacyanoferrate(III).341 nucleophilic (gr.: core/nucleus loving) is the tendency of a particle to react with positively

charged particles. For this, at least a partial negative charge of the nucleophilic particle is re-quired. In this case, cyanide is, due to its negative charge (CN – ), much more nucleophilic to-wards the positively charge iron (Fe3+) than the formally uncharged (though polar) hydrogencyanide.




162

of chemisorption313 on solid surfaces deserves being mentioned, wherethe hydrogen cyanide releases its proton (H+) to an alkaline oxide andis itself attached to a metal ion.

Absorption and dissociation of the superbly soluble hydrogen cya-nide (see chapter 6.5.4.) is clearly superior to chemisorption. Further-more, the aqueous solution (as solvent) is indispensable for the complex formation and redox reactions of the cyanide with Fe3+. Addition-ally, the aqueous medium makes the reacting agents mobile, which donot always form at the same location. And finally, the moisture con-tained in the solid material works as a trap for hydrogen cyanide, be-cause it intensely binds the hydrogen cyanide. Or the other wayaround: the drier a solid material is, the easier hydrogen cyanide,which was ad-/absorbed before, will be released back into the envi-ronment. Therefore, a relatively high water content of the solid mate-rial will accelerate the reaction.

Experiments with reactions of hydrogen cyanide (some 4 g per m³in air, 15°C, 75% rel. humidity) with mixtures of Fe(OH)2-Fe(OH)3 attached to wet paper strips showed that a blue discoloration occurredafter 30 min at a pH value342 of 2 to 3, since at such low values almostno hydrogen cyanide dissociates to the reactive cyanide (see chapter

6.5.5.). At pH values of 7 to 9, a visible blue discoloration occurredafter a few minutes of inserting the sample. At higher pH values, thistime span grew again, because the initially absorbed hydrogen cyanidehad to lower the pH value first, before it could form the pigment (seechapter 6.6.1., pH Sensitivity).

These experiments show clearly that undissociated, gaseous HCNor HCN dissolved as gas shows no reactivity. An addition of smallamounts of KCN to an aqueous sulfuric acid solution of Fe2+/Fe3+,

however, results in the immediate precipitation of the pigment. Thecyanide obviously reacts faster with the iron salts than it is protonated by sulfuric acid, i.e., converted into hydrogen cyanide.

342

pH (pondus hydrogenii) is a measure for the acid content of aqueous solutions (negative,decadic logarithm of H3O+ concentration: -lg10(c(H3O

+))): pH < 7: acid pH = 7: neutral pH > 7: alkaline




163

6.5.3. Reactivity of Trivalent Iron

6.5.3.1. Overview

The solubility of trivalent iron diminishes rapidly with increasingalkalinity (rising pH value). Even in a pH neutral environment, almostall iron is bound as rust.343 The reaction between iron compounds andcyanide resulting in the formation of the intermediate product iron(III)-cyanide, [Fe(CN)6]

3– , is therefore largely a reaction on the solid-liquidinterface, that is, between the iron adhering to the solid body and thecyanide ion in solution. This reaction occurs considerably more slowlythan the same reaction in an aqueous solution. The fastest possible re-action requires a large surface area on the solid-fluid phase boundary,that is, a large, interior, microscopically rough surface and a fine,highly porous solid body, since in such cases, a lot of the iron compounds lie on the surface and are therefore less solidly bound and canquickly combine with cyanide.

In an increasingly alkaline environment, only decreasingly smallamounts of ‘rust’ can slowly be converted into iron(II)-cyanide, butcannot react with iron(III)-ions to form Iron Blue.

6.5.3.2. ExcursusEven in an alkaline environment, it must be expected that rust, in

the presence of perceptible cyanide concentrations, will be quite slowlytransformed into iron(III)-cyanide and finally into iron(II)-cyanide.344 The last step required for the formation of Iron Blue, however, thecombination of iron(II)-cyanide with iron(III), will not occur due to thelack of dissolved iron(III)-ions. In a strongly alkaline environment, anincreasing concentration of iron(II)-cyanide, which is chemically sta-

ble, can slowly accumulate. It remains in a stand-by position, waitingfor the pH value to drop.

Iron salts generally tend to incorporate water, and Iron Blue is noexception to this. A higher water content in the solid body results in

343 Fe2O(3-x)(OH)2x · x H2O344 Naturally, the equilibrium of the reaction Fe(OH)3 + 6 CN – ⇀↽ [Fe(CN)6]

3- + 3 OH – under

such conditions is strongly on the left hand side. However, this does not mean, as is well

known, that a minute quantity of iron(III)-cyanide will not be formed. The latter, however, iswithdrawn from the equilibrium in alkaline medium in the presence of excess cyanide, by be-ing reduced by the latter to iron(II)-cyanide, which is considerably more stable in alkaline me-dium than iron(III)-cyanide; for further details, see also chapter 6.6.1.




164

increased water accumulation in rust, too. The rust expands, so tospeak, and thus becomes more reactive towards competing ligands345 like cyanide. Freshly precipitated, extremely moist and non-homo-

genous iron hydroxide precipitations possess extreme reactivity, andtogether with hydrogen cyanide, as shown in chapter 6.5.2.2., theyform the pigment in visible quantities in minutes.

For the formation of colloidally dispersible Iron Blue, the quick formation in aqueous solution with high concentrations of the agents isrequired (see chapter 6.4.2.), since this leads to heterogeneous crystal-lites (tiny crystals) with many inclusions (ions, solvent molecules) anda high degree of disorder. These crystallites have only a small tendencyto coagulate.

The slow interface reaction on the phase-boundary layer liquid-solid with quite low concentrations of the reacting agents will suppressthe formation of colloidally dispersible Iron Blue. The process de-scribed here, occurring in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide, stronglyresembles the formation of monocrystals as described by Buser,329 since in this case also, one reagent (Fe2+) had to be formed throughslow reduction by excess cyanide. Thus, except from the inhomogene-ous material, the conditions here under consideration are suitable for a

slow crystal growth of insoluble Iron Blue without large amounts of inclusions and formation of crystal defects.

6.5.4. Temperature

6.5.4.1. OverviewThe environmental temperature influences larger magnitudes in

quite a different manner:

A) Accumulation of hydrogen cyanide in the moisture of the ma-sonry;

B) Water content of the solid body;C) Velocity of reaction.

A: Graph 2 shows the maximum solubility of HCN in water atvarious temperatures with a hydrogen cyanide content of 1 mol% in

345 In complex chemistry, ligands refer to in most cases negatively charged particles (anions)surrounding in most cases a positively charged central particle (cation, in general a metal ion).In this case, the central atom iron (Fe2+/3+) is surrounded by the ligand cyanide (CN – ).




165

air,346 which corre-sponds to approxi-mately 13 g hydrogen

cyanide per m3

air.347

Itincreases, as with anygas, with decreasingtemperature and lies between 0.065 mol per lat 30°C and 0.2 mol per l at 0°C.

These high concen-trations prove the ex-treme solubility of hy-drogen cyanide in wa-ter.320 It decreases by approximately half every 20°C. It is thereforeapproximately 10,000 times more soluble in water than oxygen (O2)and approximately 250 times more soluble than carbon dioxide (CO2).The latter is not without importance, since the opinion is sometimesexpressed in the literature that the carbon dioxide content of air couldhave an influence on the amount of hydrogen cyanide soluble in wa-

ter.57 But since hydrogen cyanide is considerably more soluble in water than CO2, and since CO2, furthermore, is hardly converted into carbonic acid in water at all, this influence may be disregarded.349

B: The moisture content of masonry is very strongly dependent onthe relative humidity of air and the temperature. Since the tendency of water to evaporate (water vapor pressure) increases with rising tem-

346 mol is a standard amount of particles: 1 mol = 6.023 × 1023 particles, according to the defini-

tion, the number of atoms contained in 12 g Carbon.347 Landolt-Börnstein, Eigenschaften der Materie in ihren Aggregatzuständen, part 2, volume b,

Lösungsmittelgleichgewichte I , Springer, Berlin 1962, pp. 1-158.348 The partial pressure of a gas is it fraction of the total gas content.349 The influence is supposed to be based on the fact that carbonic acid (H2CO3, pK A= 6.37) dis-

places the cyanide ion (CN – ) from the equilibrium: 1. CO2 + H2O⇌ H2CO3; 2. CN – + H2CO3 ⇀↽ HCN + HCO3

– . Since, however, CO2 is only soluble in water with difficulty and since, inaddition, the equilibrium of the reaction CO2 + H2O ⇀↽ H2CO3 (carbonic acid) lies almostcompletely on the left side, the concentration of carbonic acid in the moisture of masonry it-self is several orders of magnitude lower than that of the hydrogen cyanide, even if the contentof carbon dioxide in the room under consideration, exposed to hydrogen cyanide, is similar to

the hydrogen cyanide content. HCO3

–

(pK A=10.25), finally, is a weaker acid than HCN(pK A=9.31) and would therefore be displaced by the latter: HCN + HCO3 – ⇀↽ CN – + CO2 +

H2O. Therefore, even a higher carbon dioxide content in air can hardly influence the absorp-tion of hydrogen cyanide in masonry.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Temperature [°C]

c ( H C N )

[ m o l / l ]

Graph 2: Saturation concentration of hydrogen cyanide in water as a function of

temperature at 1 mol% HCN in the air (partial

pressure348 of p(HCN)=0.01, e.g., 10 mbar HCN at 1,000 mbar total pressure).




166

perature, and since, as a rule, the relative humidity of the air decreases,and since both lead to a drop in the water content, any increase in thetemperature has a cumulative effect. Drops in water content by a power

of ten at temperature increases of 10°C have been proven in the temperature ranges of 10-30°C under consideration (see chapter 6.7.).

C: Only an acceleration in the slowest of the five steps describedin chapter 6.5.1. can be responsible for a change in the velocity of theentire reaction. In neutral or alkaline medium, this is the displacementof the oxygen or OH – -ion in rust by the cyanide ion (point c). Althoughthe iron(III)-cyanide [Fe(CN)6]

3– itself is stable in a moderately alka-line medium350 —that is, the iron(III)-cyanide is more stable than the

rust—the displacement of the OH –

-ions in rust is inhibited by the cya-nide, since the rust is not dissolved in water. An increase in tempera-ture by 20°C usually doubles the velocity of reaction, if the other pa-rameters remain unchanged.

This is, however, not so in extreme cases, since, as shown above,the velocity of reaction is very strongly negatively influenced by themassively decreased water content at higher temperatures (see above):decreased mobility of the reaction partner, decreased reactivity of iron,

increased evaporation of ad-/absorbed hydrogen cyanide etc. (seechapters 6.5.2. and 6.5.3.). A strong reduction in pigment formationmust therefore be expected at increased temperatures.

A decisively higher water content of the solid material and theconsiderably better absorption and solubility properties of hydrogencyanide in water are the reasons for the tendency of solid materials toaccumulate more cyanides with lower temperatures. An increase in thereactivity of iron oxide (rust) in the solid body with relation to hydro-

gen cyanide with a higher water content of the solid material at lower temperatures must be anticipated, as well as with a general increase inthe reactivity of all agents. A cooler, and thus moister, solid material istherefore better suited to the formation of Iron Blue than a warm, dry body.351

350

See also J.C. Bailar’s remarks on the massive reduction force of Fe(CN)6]

3-

in the alkalineenvironment, op. cit. (note 338).351 In the immediate vicinity and beyond the freezing point of water, however, the reactivity

drops of course.




167

6.5.4.2. ExcursusThere are two more steps in the observed reaction which could,

theoretically, have an influence on the reaction under consideration:

A) Adsorption on the solid material;B) Dissociation of hydrogen cyanide.

A: The adsorption of hydrogen cyanide on solid surfaces de-creases with rising temperature, according to Langmuire (see Graph3).352

Θ =

K

T· p · e-∆H/RT

1-K T

· p · e-∆H/RT (1)

Θ = Degree of adsorption ∆H = adsorption enthalpy (negative)K = variable R = universal gas constantT = temperature e = Euler’s number (2.71828...) p = gas pressure

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

temperature

d e g r e e o f c o v e r a g e [ % ]

Graph 3: Degree of coverage of the surface of a solid

material with an adsorbed gas as a function of temperature(schematic)

The intensity of the decrease of the equilibrium degree of adsorp-tion (coverage) with rising temperature as well as the point of approximate saturation, however, are unknown for the problem at hand.But since, as discussed before, all reactions under consideration require

aqueous solutions anyway, adsorptions on solid, i.e., dry surfaces are352 J. Oudar, Physics and Chemistry of Surfaces, Blackie & Son, Glasgow 1975, pp. 26ff.




168

of no importance to our investigation.B: According to the literature, the dissociation behavior of acids as

a function of temperature is not unanimous.353 Although there is a ten-

dency of increasing protolysis354

with rising temperature, this tendencyturns upside down at higher temperatures for some acids, others showgenerally falling values. Since the changes are generally in the range of low percentages only, and because speed of protolysis is generally veryhigh, hence never a restricting factor, this can be neglected here.

6.5.5. pH Value

The pH value (acidity) influences the formation in various ways.

In chapter 6.5.1., reference has already been made to the higher reduc-tion power of cyanide and iron(III)-cyanide in alkaline environment.The pH value also influences the reactivity of iron compounds in thesolid body (chapter 6.5.3.).

As remarked above, dissolved hydrogen cyanide hardly exhibitsreactivity. The formation of cyanide ions by absorption and dissocia-tion of hydrogen cyanide only starts in sufficient degree at neutral pHvalues and above, see Graph 4.355 The data leading to Graph 4, together

with the data that enabled us to plot Graph 2 (saturation concentrationof HCN as a functionof temperature), leadsto a graph revealing therelationship betweentemperature, pH value(acid content), and CN – saturation concentra-tion, see Graph 5 (at aconcentration of 1mol% HCN in air,which is approximately1% by weight, theusual disinfestation

353 R.C. Weast (ed.), op. cit., (note 322), p. D 163.354

Protolysis is the splitting of acids (HAc) into their corresponding acid anion (base, Ac

–

) and proton (H+, or with water to H3O+): HAc + H2O Ac – + H3O

+ here HCN + H2O CN – + H3O

+..355 pK A values of HCN: 9.31; R.C. Weast (ed.), op. cit. (note 353).

0

20

40

60

80

100

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

pH-value

d i s s o c i a t i o n d e g r e e

o f H C N [ % ]

50% at pH 9.31 = pKA of HCN

Graph 4: Degree of disassociation of

hydrogen cyanide as a function of the pH valueat room temperature.




169

concentration).356 At neutral pHvalues, equilib-

rium concentra-tions of CN – arewithin the rangeof 3×10 –4 to1×10 –3 mol per liter, dependingon the tempera-ture. An increasein the pH value by one point re-sults in a ten-foldincrease in thecyanide equilib-rium concentra-tion. The actual cyanide concentration in masonry is determined by thevelocity of absorption of the gas, adsorption effects within the solidmaterial, and possible reactions of the cyanide.

The result of all these factors is that slightly alkaline pH values arefavorable to the formation of the pigment.

The individual parameters and their influence on the formation of Iron Blue are summarized in the following table:

Table 4: Formation of Iron Blue Parameter EffectWater con-

tent Increase in water content results in the following: increased absorp-tion of hydrogen cyanide; long-term retention of ad-/absorbed hydro-

gen cyanide; increased mobility of reaction partners; increased reac-tivity of iron oxide; water is the basic precondition for disassociationand redox reactions; generally positive influence with increasing

water content. The water content is dependent above all upon thetemperature.

Reactivity of

the iron

Factor determining reaction velocity, apart from the type of materialand pH value (see below), positively influenced by increasing water content.

356 Valid for ideal solutions.

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Temperature [°C]

c ( C N - ) s a t . [ m o l / l ]

pH = 10

pH = 9

pH = 8

pH = 6

pH = 7

pH = 5

Graph 5: Cyanide equilibrium concentration in water

as a function of the temperature and pH value at 1mol-% HCN in the air.




170

Parameter EffectTemperature Increased ad-/absorption of hydrogen cyanide as well as—under oth-

erwise identical conditions—decreased velocity of individual reac-tions with falling temperature; strong increase on water content, and

therefore a strongly positive net influence upon all other factors witha falling temperature.

pH value Increased iron reactivity with falling pH, as well as a massive reduc-tion in cyanide accumulation and redox reactivity of iron(III)-cyanide; compromise between iron reactivity and cyanide forma-tion/Fe3+ reduction: A weakly alkaline pH value is favorable toabsorption of hydrogen cyanide and accumulation of cyanide as wellas for the reduction in iron(III)-cyanide, which determines the veloc-ity of the reaction. Although more strongly alkaline media can accu-mulate iron(II)-cyanide over longer periods of time, no Iron Blue can

form under such circumstances.

6.6. Stability of Iron Blue

6.6.1. pH Sensitivity

Iron Blue is an extremely acid-resistant, but base-decomposing pigment.357 Hydrogen cyanide is only released by warm, diluted sulfu-

ric acid, while hydrochloric acid, by contrast, has no effect.

358

In aclearly alkaline environment, i.e., in the presence of high concentra-tions of OH – ions, these displace the cyanide ion from the iron(III)-ion.Fe(OH)3 is then precipitated (‘rust sludge’), and the Iron Blue is de-stroyed.359

357 The hexacyanoferrate acids are very strong acids: J. Jordan, G.J. Ewing, Inorg. Chem. 1(1962), pp. 587-591. The findings of analyses of disassociation constants show, for hexacyan-oferrate(III): K III1 >K III2 >K III3 >0.1; hexacyanoferrate(II): K II1 >K II2 >0.1; K II3 =6×10-3; K II4 =6.7×10-5.

Thus, hexacyanoferrate(III) is still almost completely disassociated at pH=1, hexacyanofer-rate(II) doubly, from pH=3 triply, from pH=5 complete.

358 G.-O. Müller, Lehrbuch der angewandten Chemie, vol. I, Hirzel, Leipzig 1986, p. 108; the pigment is, however, reversibly soluble in concentrated hydrochloric acid, i.e., the pigment isnot decomposed, but merely physically brought into solution; there is therefore no release of hydrogen cyanide; see also H.J. Buser et al., op. cit. (note 329); see also chapter 8.2.: analyti-cal method for total cyanide content according to DIN: the pigment is destroyed by boilingHClaq.. Iron Blue suspensions (see note 331) have an acid pH value of approximately 4. At thisslightly acid eigen pH, as is formed, for example, by acid rain in surface waters, Iron Blue isat its most stable: H. Ferch, H. Schäfer, op. cit. (note 333). In technical applications, the alka-line resistance is increase by adding nickel, cf. R.E. Kirk, D.F. Othmer, op. cit. (note 332);

J.A. Sistino, op. cit. (note 332); E. Elsermann, Deutsche Farben-Z. 5 (1951), pp. 419ff.; R.Beck, Deutsche Farben-Z. 6 (1952), p. 231.359 Iron(III)-hydroxide is even less soluble in this range than Iron Blue; on the solubility of

Fe(OH)3 see chapter 6.6.3.; to be exact, Iron Blue is not totally destroyed at a high pH; rather,




171

The literature contains authenticated cases of studies with iron at pH values of 9 and 10, in which it is still stable.360 The pH rangearound 10 to 11 can be considered the critical limit for the stability of

Iron Blue. Based on the alkaline behavior of fresh mortar and concrete(in this regard, see also chapter 6.7.2), Iron Blue is only used to paintthese surfaces to a limited extent.361

6.6.2. Solubility

6.6.2.1. OverviewIron Blue is considered one of the least soluble cyanide com-

pounds, which is the precondition for its widely-varied application as a pigment.362 The literature flatly refers to Iron Blue as “insoluble”.363

Concrete, reliable values on the solubility of Iron Blue are not re-corded in the scientific literature. Based on comparative calculations between the known solubility of Fe(OH)3 on the one hand, and thelimit value of the pH stability of Iron Blue on the other hand (pH 10),the approximate solubility of Iron Blue in water can, however, be cal-culated (see chapter 6.6.2.2.). It amounts to approximately 10-24 g IronBlue per liter of water, this means that 0.000000000000000000000001

g Iron Blue dissolve in 1,000 g of water.In addition to a compound’s solubility in water, its condition

(crudely or finely crystalline, superficially adherent or adsorbed bycapillary effects) as well as, in particular, the condition and quantity of

the Fe3+ is, initially, merely withdrawn; the base-resistant [Fe(CN)6]4- remains intact; see note

344.360 See the studies by M.A. Alich et al., op. cit. (note 338).361 J.A. Sistino, op. cit. (note 332); H. Beakes, Paint Ind. Mag. 69(11) (1954), pp. 33f. Mixtures

of Iron Blue and phtalocyanine blue generally find application, since both, alone, lack suffi-cient long-term stability; Degussa describes the lime fastness of Iron Blue as “not good ” (H.Ferch, H. Schäfer, op. cit. (note 333)); however, Degussa is referring to its fastness on still un-carbonated, alkaline plasters and concretes: H. Winkler, Degussa AG, letter to this author,June 18, 1991. My own experiments with the dissolution of fresh Iron Blue precipitations re-sulted in a limit value of pH 10-11 for the stability of Iron Blue.

362 This property is used in Russian industry, for example, for the passivation of steel pipesagainst aggressive waste waters, since CN – contained in waste waters coats the interior of

pipes with an insoluble protective layer of Iron Blue: N.G. Chen, J. Appl. Chem. USSR,74(1)(1974), pp. 139-142. But it should be noted that this borders on criminal negligence,since toxic cyanides simply do not belong in waste waters.

363

DIN Safety Data Sheet VOSSEN-Blau

®

, in: Schriftenreihe Pigmente Nr. 50, Degussa AG,Frankfurt 1985; see also H. Ferch, H. Schäfer, op. cit. (note 333). Last but not least, pigments, by definition, are coloring agents practically insoluble in dissolvents and binding agents (DIN55,943 and 55,945).




172

the water supplied are decisive in determining the actual velocity of dissolution of a substance. Iron Blue formed in masonry will be pre-sent in a finely crystalline form and adsorbed by capillary effects, in

which case the former favors dissolution, while the latter is extremelydetrimental to dissolution. Water almost or entirely saturated withiron(III)-ions is no longer capable of dissolving further iron. Further-more, water permeation through finely porous solid material like ma-sonry is extremely low even at high water tables; the iron saturationconcentration is quickly attained, which, in addition, as remarkedabove, is generated by the slightly more soluble iron oxides of the solid body rather than by the Iron Blue having once arisen. It is furthermorevery well known that mortar and concrete permeated with paints prac-tically cannot be rendered colorless.364 It cannot, therefore, be anticipated that the Iron Blue content once having arisen in walls can be per-ceptibly reduced by dissolution in water. Water running down the exte-rior surfaces is considerably more aggressive, exerting, in particular, anerosive effect, i.e., damaging the masonry as such.

6.6.2.2. Excursus

Tananaev et al.

365

examined the solubility of metal hexacyanofer-rate(II) and discovered a solubility product366 of 3 · 10-41 (pK S =40.5) for the solubility product of Iron Blue, without mentioning the unit used.

Assuming they used the summation formula of Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3 (unit being mol7 l-7), one attains a solubility of 0.5 mg per liter water.Thus, it would be 14 times less soluble than the nearly insoluble cal-cium carbonate (CaCO3, 7.1 mg per liter water, K S = 4.95 · 10-10 mol2l-

2).367 Later publications support these findings,336 although attentionmust be paid to deviations in the stoichiometry (composition) of Iron

Blue with impurities, leading to an increased solubility.Tananaev et al. precipitated the complex metal cyanoferrate from

364 See also, in this regard, the remarks of a company dealing in colored cements and concretes:Davis Colors, 3700 East Olympics Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90023,www.coloredconcrete.com/davis/Tech/03470.html.

365 I.V. Tananaev, M.A. Glushkova, G.B. Seifer, J. Inorg. Chem. USSR, 1 (1956), pp. 72ff.366 The solubility product of a compound is defined as the product of the entire ionic concentra-

tion of the totally dissociated compound: Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3→ 4 Fe3+ + 3 [Fe(CN)6]4-;

K L(Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3) = c(Fe

3+

)·c(Fe

3+

)·c(Fe

3+

)·c(Fe

3+

)·c([Fe(CN)6]

4-

)·c([Fe(CN)6]

4-

)·c([Fe(CN)6]

4-

)= c4(Fe3+)·c3([Fe(CN)6]4-).

The pK S value correlates to the negative decimal logarithm of the product of solubility.367 R.C. Weast (ed.), op. cit., (note 322), p. B 222.




173

an appropriate metal salt solution with Li4[Fe(CN)6], probably acquir-ing a high rate of inclusions (lithium, water) as well. Thus, in spite of the four hour-long accumulation of the precipitation, the filtrate would

certainly still have contained colloidally dispersed Iron Blue. Sincethey finally determined the amount of free Fe3+ in the filtrate by pre-cipitating it with ammonia as Fe(OH)3, they will undoubtedly alsohave precipitated the Fe3+ of the colloidally dispersed Iron Blue, asammonia raises the pH value so much that Iron Blue is no longer stable(see chapter 6.6.1.).

Therefore, they did not determine the solubility of Iron Blue, butthe measure of stability of the dispersion of fresh precipitations of the pigment.

The solubility product of Pb2[Fe(CN)6] given by Krleza et al. ,336 which they used as a reference to determine the solubility products, ismuch lower than the one used by Tananaev et al.. If applied to Tanan-aev’s calculations, this produces a solubility of Iron Blue of only 0.05mg per liter. Krleza et al., however, find similar results for the solubil-ity of most of the metal cyanides analyzed, including Iron Blue. Sinceconventional methods of analysis, such as gravimetry and titration,tend to be unreliable when facing minute traces, one must but wonder

about these similar results.However, one can escape this dilemma by thoughtful reasoning.It is safe to say that Iron Blue is stable at a pH value of 7, i.e., in a

neutral aqueous medium, so we take this as a minimum value. As men-tioned earlier, a pH value of about 10 can be considered the upper limitof stability for Iron Blue, so we take this as maximum value for thefollowing calculations. At pH=7, and even more so at pH=10, the freeiron concentration is extremely low, since Fe(OH)3 is nearly insoluble

(see Table 5).At pH 7 and 10, respectively, a saturated Fe(OH)3 solution has the

following free Fe3+ concentration:

c(Fe3+) =K L(Fe(OH)3)

c3(OH-) (2)

pH=7: =2.67×10-39 mol4l-4

10-21 mol3l-3 = 2.67×10-18 mol l-1 (3)

pH=10: =2.67×10-39 mol4l-4

10-12 mol3l-3 = 2.67×10-27 mol l-1 (4)




174

Should the free Fe3+ concentration surpass this value due to a bet-ter solubility of Iron Blue, then Fe3+ would precipitate as hydroxideand would be increasingly removed from the pigment, thereby destroy-

ing it in the end. Since this does not happen at pH=7 at all, and pH=10can be considered the point where it just starts to happen, the concen-tration of the Fe3+ ion in a saturated Iron Blue solution must lie well below 10-18 mol/liter, i.e., in the area of 10-27 mol/liter. Thus, the solubility of Iron Blue must also have a value around 10-27 mol per liter (actually: ¼ of the free Fe3+ concentration, K S less than 4.1 · 10-187 mol7 l-7

, pK S larger than 186.6) which, at a mol mass of 1,110 g mol -1 ((Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3 · 14 H2O) would correlate to 10-24 g.

With this, the complex iron pigment does indeed deserve to becalled insoluble, as only one part of dissolved Iron Blue can statisti-cally be found in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 parts of water (1029). The actual solubility would therefore be less by a factor of 1020 as determined by Tananaev et al., which would come prettyclose to values calculated for other so-called ‘insoluble’ compounds,like mercury sulfide (HgS). However, one must consider that thechemistry of Fe3+ in aqueous solutions doesn’t justify the terms ‘dis-solved’ or ‘precipitated’, since a multitude of complexes do exist in the

1E-30

1E-27

1E-24

1E-21

1E-18

1E-15

1E-12

1E-09

1E-06

1E-03

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

pH value

c ( F e ³ + ) [ m o l / l ]

0

50

100

150

200

250

p K

s ( I r o n B l u e )

Graph 6: Free Fe³

+concentration as a function of pH value and the

resulting minimal pK S value of Iron Blue, depending on its stability at

the corresponding pH value. pK S value acc. to Tananaev et al. : 40.5;according to reflections made here: greater than 123, smaller than

186.

Tananaev

Rudolf

min.

max.




175

broad pH-spectrum, partly as polymer hydroxo-aquo-complexes (compare chapter 6.5.3.).

Graph 6 shows the correlation between the pH value of the free

Fe3+

-concentration in a hypothetical saturated solution of Iron Blue andthe respectively resulting minimal pK S values possible for Iron Blue,which it must possess, should stability prevail at the given pH-reading.Tananaev’s pK S value given, it is obvious that the pigment would re-main stable only up to pH 3. Accordingly, it would dissociate itself byits eigen pH value of 4 (see chapter 6.6.1., note 358), which is formedin its own dispersion. Thus the magnitude of error in the results of Tananaev et al. and Krleza et al. is apparent.

These reflections show that iron, bound as hydroxides or oxides insolid materials, tends to dissolve in a neutral medium more readily thanIron Blue, since its equilibrium concentration must be higher than thatof Iron Blue.

6.6.3. Excursus: Competing LigandsAs shown, OH – -ions may, due to the low solubility of Fe(OH)3,

noticeably precipitate the Fe3+ of Iron Blue in pH media above 9 to 10.

The residual hexacyanoferrate(II), on the other hand, would only de-compose in strongly alkaline media, because Fe(OH)2 is simply moresoluble (compare Table 5).369

Tartrate370 has, in contrast to oxalate, hardly any effects so that

368 C. Wilson, Wilson & Wilson’s Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 1B, Elsevier, Am-sterdam 1960, p. 162.

369 In absence of free cyanide ions, the pH stability limit of hexacyanoferrate(II) (total dissocia-

tion) is at 11.8, but already very small amounts of free cyanide (10

-10

mol l

-1

) push the limit upto pH=13.370 Tartrate, corresponding base of tartaric acid. The mixed potassium-sodium-salt is the famous

tartrate (potassium bitartrate), which crystallizes on the cork of wine bottles (Seignette salt).

Table 5: Dissociation constants and solubility productsof iron compounds

Compound Constant SourceK S(Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3) 4.1 · 10-187 mol7 l-7

K D(6)([Fe(CN)6]

4-

) 10

-24

mol l

-1

368

K D(6)([Fe(CN)6]3-) 10-31 mol l-1 368

K S(Fe(OH)2) 4.79×10-17 mol3 l-3 367

K S(Fe(OH)3) 2.67×10-39 mol4 l-4 367 K S(FeCO3) 3.13×10-11 mol2 l-2 367




176

Fe3+ can be quantitatively removed from sour wine with [Fe(CN)6]4-, a

usual procedure to remove iron ions from wine.371 Concentrated alkalicarbonate solutions will precipitate the Fe2+ of Iron Blue as FeCO3, so

that they destroy the entire pigment by precipitating Fe3+

as Fe(OH)3 (due to alkalinity) and the hexacyanoferrate(II) salt [Fe(CN)6]4-.372 Cal-

cium carbonate solutions, however, would not be sufficient due to their marginal saturation solubility. Besides that, Kohn examined the sup- portive effect of most of the organic ligands to disperse Iron Blue.373

Thus, apart from OH – (alkaline medium), there are no other lig-ands to be considered competing in the formation or dissolution of IronBlue in the cases here under consideration.

6.6.4. Effects of Light

6.6.4.1. OverviewIron Blue itself is generally considered a light-resistant pigment,

which is only slowly decomposed by the effects of UV radiation.374 Thus, there are even patents utilizing Iron Blue as a UV-absorbing pigment, which is only meaningful with sufficient resistance to UVradiation.375 Since the walls of interest to us here are protected from

UV radiation and because UV radiation can only exert a superficialeffect on the walls, while the Iron Blue would form and remain withinthe walls, a possible process of decomposition by UV radiation canhave no influence upon our investigation.

6.6.4.2. ExcursusCertain wave lengths of ultraviolet radiation may set free CN – from

hexacyanoferrate(II) and -(III), the preliminary stages of Iron Blue. As

far as hexacyanoferrate(III) is concerned, this leads to the formation of

371 C. Lapp, C. Wehrer, P. Laugel, Analusis, 13 (4) (1985), pp. 185-190.372 G.-O. Müller, op. cit. (note 358).373 M. Kohn, Anal. Chim. Acta 3 (1949), pp. 558ff.; ibid., 5 (1951), pp. 525-528; ibid., 11 (1954),

pp. 18-27.374 See also Winnacker-Küchler, Chemische Technologie, volume 2, Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich

1982, p. 197; H. Ferch, H. Schäfer, op. cit. (note 333); Wilhelm Foerst (ed.), Ullmanns Encyk-lopädie der technischen Chemie, volume 13, Urban und Schwarzenberg, Munich 31962, p.

794; ibid., volume 18, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim 1979, pp. 623ff.; H. Watanabe, J. Jap. Soc.Col. Mat., 34 (1961), pp. 5-8; L. Müller-Focken, Farbe und Lack , 84 (1987), pp. 489-492.375 H. Tada, M. Kunio, H. Kawahara, Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho, 1990, 3 p. Source only available

as abstract.




177

Iron Blue.337 As far as hexacyanoferrate(II) is concerned, quantum effi-ciencies376 of 0.1 to 0.4 are reported for wave lengths of 365 nm.377

Lately, it has been discussed whether complex cyanides can be

removed from industrial waste waters by ultraviolet radiation. The un- bound cyanide will be oxidized and destroyed by hydroxyl radicalsoriginating from the parallelly occurring photolysis of water.378 How-ever, results are not unequivocal.379

As for Iron Blue, one knows of the bleaching effect under strong, perpetual sun radiation and the ensuing re-darkening during thenight.380 Here also, the liberation of CN – is responsible, which reduces parts of the Fe3+ ions to Fe2+ ions. The latter process, however, willreverse during the night under the influence of oxygen and moisture.The Iron Blue concentration will eventually be reduced by the loss of the released CN – , either by evaporation of hydrogen cyanide, by wash-ing out as CN – , or by oxidation through Fe3+/atmospheric oxygen or from hydroxyl radicals from the natural photolysis of water. The latter process is minute and can therefore be omitted. At any rate, most of thecyanide released by photolysis will again be complex bound to iron.

6.6.5. Long-Term Test The best long-term test available to us consists of disinfestation

buildings BW 5a and 5b in Birkenau, which have defied the wind andweather of the strongly corrosive climate in the industrial region of Upper Silesia for over 50 years, and which are still colored blue, bothinside and out, exhibiting a high cyanide content. These findings arealso supported by two other long-term tests.

The color durability of Iron Blue, in addition to other pigments,

376 Quantum efficiency is that part of the absorbed light quants which leads to photo reactionsunder scrutiny, here from 10 to 40%.

377 L. Moggi, et al., op. cit. (note 337); V. Carassiti, V. Balzani, Ann. Chim. 50 (1960), pp. 782-789.

378 Photolysis of water leads to the splitting of water into uncharged parts with unpaired electrons(formation of radicals through homolytic splitting (homolysis); see also dissociation, note339):

2 H2O + hν H3O· + OH· (hν = photo quant)

hydroxyl radical379 M.D. Gurol, J.H. Woodman, Hazard. Ind. Waste 21 (1989), pp. 282-290; S.A. Zaidi, J. Carey,

in: Proceedings of the Conference on Cyanide and the Environment , Colorado State Univer-sity, 1984, pp. 363-377.380 Deutsche Chemische Gesellschaft (ed.), Gmelins Handbuch, op. cit. (note 335); Ullmanns

Encyklopädie, op. cit. (note 374); L. Müller-Focken, op. cit. (note 374).




178

was tested during an environmental resistance test lasting 21 years inthe industrial district of Slough, west of London.381 In so doing, piecesof aluminium sheet metal were alternatively dipped in an iron(III)-

cyanide and then in an iron(III)-salt solution,382

by which the resulting pigment was adsorbed on the aluminium sheet metal. The test sheetswere then exposed to the environment on the roof of a building in avertical 45° angle facing south-west.

During the 21 years lasting test, in which eight Iron Blue sampleswere tested among other pigments, the Iron Blue, in particular, fol-lowed by iron ochre (Fe2O3, rust), exhibited only minimal alterationsafter this period of time. One sample of Iron Blue and iron ochre wasremoved only after 10 to 11 years in each case.383 All other samplesstill exhibited an intense blue color. Half of the seven remaining IronBlue samples received the value 4 out of a maximum of 5 points for the best retention of quality, on the grey scale used there in the deter-mination of color changes. Only minor alterations were detected.

The exhibits were therefore exposed to the environmental condi-tions of a strongly industrialized area, with full effects of precipitation,direct sunshine, and wind erosion for more than 21 years. Under in-tense summer sunshine and in the absence of wind, the temperature of

the dark-blue colored aluminium metal sheets rose steeply (Iron Blue isonly stable up to approximately 140°C.384). Snow, frost, hail, storms,and the finest, driving acid drizzle had obviously just as little an effecton the pigment as the UV radiation of direct sunlight. What is remark-able is that in determining the degree of destruction of the pigment nounexposed samples were used since these had been lost over the 21-year period; rather, places on the surface of the exhibits which had been relatively well protected from direct environmental influences by

the frames and by rubber rings on the screw joints were used as controlsamples. These exhibited almost no alterations.

In comparison to the environmental conditions which are of inter-

381 J.M. Kape, E.C. Mills, Tranp. Inst. Met. Finish., 35 (1958), pp. 353-384; ibid., 59 (1981), pp.

35-39.382 K 4[Fe(CN)6]3 or Fe(NO3)3.383 The literature does not, however, mention this Iron Blue sample as “ Prussian Blue”, like the

others, since it was, at that time, considered to be of another type, i.e., “Turnbull’s Blue” or

“ ferrous ferricyanide”.384 Compare Ferch, H. Schäfer, op. cit. (note 333); S. Barbezat, J. Réch. Cent. Nat. Réch. Sci. 4(1952), pp. 184ff.; E. Gratzfeld, Färg och Lack , 3 (1957), pp. 85-108; E. Herrmann, Farbeund Lack , 64 (1958), pp. 130-135.




179

est here, this long-term test involved considerably more severe condi-tions, since in this case, the externally formed Iron Blue was only superficially adsorbed upon the aluminium sheets. The pigment neverthe-

less resisted extremely well.Another event proves the extraordinary long-term stability of IronBlue. For many decades at the end of the 19th and the early decades of the 20th century, Iron Blue was a by-product in the generation of citygas, because the hydrogen cyanide contained in coke gas had to beeliminated for security reasons by washing it with iron hydroxide prior to introduction into the city gas network. Iron Blue is the end productof this washing process. City gas works frequently disposed of this product by distributing some of it over their factory terrain with theintend to kill weeds—in vain, though, since Iron Blue has no effect asan herbicide. Today, the grounds of former German city gas works stillcontain high quantities of Iron Blue, many decades after the workswere put out of operation. It was neither decomposed, nor dissolved or washed away by rain water, since it is insoluble. In particular, terrainwith a high Iron Blue content is not considered polluted, since it is physiologically unobjectionable due to its stability.385

In summary, it may be stated that Iron Blue having formed in the

interior of a wall as a component of the wall itself, possesses a longevitycomparable to the iron oxide from which it has formed. This means simply that Iron Blue possesses a degree of stability which is comparable tothat of the masonry itself: the Iron Blue will remain contained in the wallfor as long as the wall itself remains in existence.386

Once perceptible quantities of cyanide have accumulated within awall, therefore, and once conditions permit the conversion of the cyanideinto Iron Blue, no perceptible reduction in the Iron Blue content can be

anticipated, even after fifty years or more.A typical example of the manner in which the media deal with these

facts is a press report issued by the German Press Agency ( Deutsche Presseagentur , dpa) on March 29, 1994, and which was then publishedin many German newspapers and even broadcast on radio. The report

385 D. Maier, K. Czurda, G. Gudehus, Das Gas- und Wasserfach, in: Gas • Erdgas, 130 (1989), pp. 474-484.

386

An interesting study has been conducted in this connection about the reduction of solublecomponents in concrete standing in water, providing support to the statements made here: noteven the concentration of alkali ions, which are the most soluble components of concrete, wasmassively reduced: H.A. El-Sayed, Cement and Concrete Research, 11 (1981), pp. 351-362.




180

flatly claimed that, according to unnamed experts:

“Cyanide compounds decompose very quickly. In the ground, thisoccurs even after six to eight weeks; in masonry, these compounds could

only be preserved under ‘absolute conditions of conservation including complete exclusion of air and bacteria.”387

Inquiries with the dpa press office in Stuttgart which published

the report revealed that the writer responsible for the report, Albert

Meinecke, had simply invented this expert opinion.388 This obvious

lie continues to be further disseminated, even by German governmentagencies such as, for example, the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior.389

6.7. Influence of Various Building Materials 6.7.1. Brick

6.7.1.1. OverviewBricks are well-known to acquire their hardness and stability dur-

ing their baking process. This causes an intensive binding of the components in bricks (sintering). One result of this is that the reactivity of

the iron oxide occurring in bricks (2 to 4%) is strongly reduced, so thata perceptible inclination to form iron cyanide is hardly to be anticipated. The immediate surface of bricks slightly attacked by atmospheric influences (weathering) nevertheless constitutes an exception tothis rule, so that the superficially adherent iron oxide is available for conversion into Iron Blue.

387 German daily newspapers, for instance: Süddeutsche Zeitung , Stuttgarter Zeitung , Südwest- presse-Verbund (March 29, 1994), taz, Frankfurter Rundschau (March 30, 1994).

388 See also W. Schlesiger, op. cit. (note 91), pp. 21-24; G. Rudolf, “Über die frei erfundene Expertenmeinung der ‘dpa’”, DGG 42(2) (1994), pp. 25f. (online:www.vho.org/D/DGG/Rudolf42_2.html); Engl. in the appendix to this book, chapter 11.5.

389 See the Bavarian State Ministry for the Interior, Verfassungsschutzbericht 1997 , Munich1998, p. 64. A corresponding reference to the factual incorrectness of the remarks made in thisregard by the Arbeitskreis Zeitgeschichte und Politik (in a letter by president Hans-JürgenWitzsch, dated Oct. 8, 1998, Fürth) was countered by the Ministry as follows: “Your efforts to

deny and/or relativize the crimes of the National Socialists have been known to the securityauthorities for years. […] We see no occasion for a discussion of gas chambers.” The letter,from Dr. Weber of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior dated Oct. 13, 1998, ref. IF1-1335.31-1, probably established a new world record for stupidty.




181

6.7.1.2. ExcursusThe chemical composition of bricks varies massively due to the

different sorts of mar and loam used as initial material. The content of

clay (included in this are 20 to 60% Kaolinite, consisting roughly of 47% SiO2, 40% Al2O3, 13% H2O) may lie between 20 and 70%, therest being carbonate, finest sand and iron oxides.390 According to myown analyses, the latter content may vary between 2 and 4%.

The porosity values of bricks lie between 20 and 30 vol.%,391 ac-cording to other sources up to 50%.392 According to my own mercury penetration tests, the pore size of bricks lies heavily concentratedaround 1 µm.393

Due to the decreased specific surface (0.5 to 1 m² per g, BET,394

own tests), the reactivity of the iron oxide is strongly reduced. How-ever, partly dissolved iron at brick surfaces immediately exposed toweathering can be set free for reactions in bigger amounts.

The normal free, i.e., not chemically bound water content of bricksin dry rooms (20°C) is in the area of one volume percent, but it can riseup to 4% at a relative humidity of over 90%.395

6.7.2. Cement Mortar and Concrete6.7.2.1. Overview

The rust content (Fe2O3) of Portland cement, of particular interestto us here, the cement most frequently used for concrete and cementmortars, is usually between 1 and 5%.396 The sand added to the mortar can also exhibit a high iron content (up to 4%). As mentioned in chap-ter 6.5.3., a large surface area at the solid-liquid phase limit (iron ox-ide-cyanide solution) is favorable to the formation of Iron Blue. This is

extraordinarily large in cement and concrete mortars (microscopic inte- 390 O. Hähnle, Baustoff-Lexikon, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart 1961, p. 384.391 Landolt-Börnstein, Zahlen und Funktionen aus Physik, Chemie, Astronomie, Technik , volume

IV Technik , part 4b Wärmetechnik , Springer, Berlin 61972, pp. 433-452.392 S. Röbert (ed.), Systematische Baustofflehre, volume 1, VEB Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin

41983, p. 120.393 These mercury penetration tests were performed at the research institute of the VARTA Bat-

terie AG in Kelkheim, Germany, in late 1991.394 Method to determine the specific surface with nitrogen adsorption following Brunauer, Em-

met, Teller.395 K. Wesche, Baustoffe für tragende Bauteile, volume 1, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977, p. 37.396 W.H. Duda, Cement-Data-Book , Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1976, pp. 4ff., as well as my own

analysis.




182

rior surfaces of approximately 200 m2 per gram).397 Fresh concrete and cement mortars—which are identical from a

chemical point of view—are relatively strongly alkaline (pH approxi-

mately 12.5). It later falls, however, due to the binding of carbon diox-ide from the air. Depending on the special chemistry of the cementmortar, this process proceeds very slowly in the depth of the material.According to the composition of the cement mortar, this may last froma few months to many decades, until the pH value of such a mortar or concrete becomes neutral, even in the deepest layers.396-398 This chemi-cal behavior explains the entire secret of the stability of reinforcedconcrete, which prevents the embedded steel from rusting further in theenvironment within the concrete, which remains alkaline for lengthy periods of time.399

The water content of concrete and cement mortars depends on thetemperature and relative humidity of the air and fluctuates between 1%and less at 20°C and 60% relative humidity up to 10% in air saturatedwith humidity.395 In case of permanently high humidity, penetratingwetness from outside, a huge part of the pore system can be filled withwater.400

Poorly insulated rooms built underground always have cool and

humid walls due to their great exchange surface area with the ground: partly because of their absorption of humidity from the ground, and partly because of the condensation of humidity in the air on the coolwalls when the temperature falls below the dew point. The water contentof these walls therefore lies around 10%, i.e., a factor of approximately10 or more above that of dry walls of heated rooms built above ground.

6.7.2.2. Excursus

The chemical composition of Portland cement, the most frequentlyused cement for concrete and water mortar, can be seen in Table 6.

397 W. Czernin, Zementchemie für Bauingenieure, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 49f.398 N.V. Waubke, Transportphänomene in Betonporen, Dissertation, Braunschweig 1966.399 In the strongly alkaline environment, iron is passivated by a passive layer of Fe(OH)3. ‘Botch

work’ on building sites, i.e., rusting reinforcement rods and cracking concrete after only a fewyears or decades, due to overly low pH value in the vicinity of the embedded reinforcementrods, is caused by a) an incorrect composition of the concrete (too little cement—it’s cheaper

this way—and/or too much or too little water—incompetence), or b) by installing the rein-forcement rods too close to the surface of the concrete, where the pH value falls strongly after a few years or decades; see notes 396f.

400 K. Wesche, Baustoffe für tragende Bauteile, volume 2, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1981, pp. 51f.




183

The specific surface of the cement powder is in the order of 3,000cm2 per g. Concrete and cement mortar get their stability by hydrationof the cement compounds calcium oxide CaO (burnt lime), siliciumdioxide SiO2 (Quartz), iron and aluminium oxide Fe2O3/Al2O3 tomixed, microfibrous calcium alumosilicate-hydrates with a chemically bound water content of some 25 mass %.401 It then has a specific sur-face of up to 200 m2 per g when measured with water adsorption,

which is an extremely high value. Other methods (e.g. BET-measuringwith nitrogen) yield a value of only 1/3 of this or less.397 The porosity of mortar and concrete heavily depends on the amount of water addedduring preparation and lies at a minimum of 27% according to the lit-erature,400 in which case the volume of the microcapillary pores be-tween the silicate fibers is included as well, which cannot be deter-mined with mercury penetration measurings.

Aside from the absolute porosity, the pore size distribution is deci-

401 Verein Deutscher Zementwerke, Zement Taschenbuch 1972/73, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1972, pp. 19ff.

402 W.H. Duda, op. cit. (note 396).

Table 6: Composition of Portland cement402 Al2O3 : 5 to 10 % K 2O: 0.2 to 0.6 %

SiO2 : 20 % Na2O: 0.5 to 3 %

CaO : 60 % Fe2O3: < 5 %

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

pore radius [µm]

a c

c u m u l a t e d r e l a t i v e p o r e

v o l u m e [ % ]

lime mortar

concrete

Graph 7: Accumulated pore volume distribution of concrete,according to “Forschungs- und Materialprüfungsanstalt, Abteilung 1: Baustoffe” (Research and Material Testing Agency, Department 1: Building Materials), Stuttgart, and of wall mortar, own analysis.

In each case determined by Hg penetration.




184

sive for the reactivity towards gases. If the main pore volume is formed by micropores, then the gas diffusion into the material is more inhib-ited than if the main pore volume is formed by larger pores. Graph 7

shows the accumulated pore volume distribution of concrete and onewall mortar (exact composition unknown, since taken from an old wall, but according to its brittle consistency probably a lime mortar).

Having a similar total pore volume like the wall mortar (here only14% due to the test method), the concrete’s largest portion of pore vol-ume lies between a pore radius of 0.01 and 0.1 µm, whereas the wallmortar’s largest portion lies between 0.1 und 10 µm. Hence, if compared with the wall mortar, the gas diffusion into the concrete will bedisadvantaged. In general, the average pore size of cement buildingmaterials changes to larger values when increasing the content of sandand lime.

Fresh concrete is relatively strongly alkaline, caused by the highcontent of calcium hydroxide, which, however, gets bound as calciumalumosilicates rather quickly. However, depending on the type of ce-ment, a certain amount of it is released as time goes by. The pH valueof non-carbonated concrete is around 12.5. It later falls, however, dueto the binding of carbon dioxide from the air.

The speed of carbonation into the depth of the concrete dependsstrongly on the consistency and porosity of the material and follows asquare root relation:403

D = c · t (5)d = depth of carbonationc = constantt = time

In water tight concretes, it takes many years for the limit of carbonation to advance only a few centimeters due to the inhibition of diffusion in this highly compact material.

In the area of carbonation, the pH value decreases to roughly 7,the equilibrium value of saturated calcium carbonate solutions. But if the wall is wet, this results in a proton exchange and therefore no sharp pH border is formed. If a large portion of the air pores (size in the or-der of a tenth of a millimeter) flooded with water poor in carbon diox-ide, the carbonation advances more slowly, because compared to the

403 W. Czernin, op. cit. (note 397); Verein Deutscher Zementwerke, op. cit. (note 401); N.V.Waubke, op. cit. (note 398).




185

gaseous phase, diffusion in aqueous phases is much slower, by someorders of magnitude. In case of waters rich in carbon dioxide, however,this can accelerate the carbonation.

6.7.3. Lime Mortar The iron content of lime mortars is based, in particular, on the ad-

mixed sand (up to 4 % Fe2O3). Lime mortar is manufactured using only burnt lime (CaO), sand, and water and acquires its solidity through the binding of slaked lime (Ca(OH)2) with atmospheric carbon dioxide tolime (CaCO3). This procedure takes only days or weeks (depending onthe thickness of the particular layers), due to the cruder porous system

which facilitates the diffusion of gas. For fresh lime mortar, an extremehigh water content can be damaging, as the carbon dioxide necessaryfor the binding process can no longer penetrate into the wall.

The final ph value of this material lies within the neutral range.Since this medium no longer provides sufficient protection for steelreinforcement rods and offers only slight environmental resistance, it isusually used for the plastering of interior walls and for interior brick walls only, in the latter case often mixed with cement. 400 The specific

surface of lime mortar lies considerably beneath that of cement mortar (up to one order of magnitude).404 The water content is similar to ce-ment mortar.

6.7.4. Effects upon the Formation of Iron BlueThe first step in the formation of Iron Blue in masonry is the ab-

sorption of gaseous hydrogen cyanide. A cool (10°C ) wall in a cellar with atmospheric humidity near the saturation point, due to its higher

water content (by a factor of at least 10), has an increased ability (by afactor of 10) to absorb hydrogen cyanide compared to warm walls in aheated room built above ground with lower atmospheric humidity(20°C, 50% rel.).

The second step in the formation of Iron Blue is the ionic split(disassociation) of the hydrogen cyanide, that is, its conversion intosimple cyanide.405 This procedure requires an alkaline environment,

404 The reason: no formation of very finely crystalline alumosilicate with higher surface area.405 In masonry, this largely corresponds to the neutralization of the hydrogen cyanide by calcium

hydroxide Ca(OH)2 into calcium cyanide Ca(CN)2.




186

which, in lime mortars, lasts only for a few days or weeks, but whichare present for months or years in cement mortar and concrete.

The next step is the formation of iron(III)-cyanide, a process that

hardly occurs in a strongly alkaline environment and which occursslowly in slightly alkaline environments. In the neutral range, this reac-tion is once again slowed down because the cyanide converts into non-reactive, volatile hydrogen cyanide by the humidity in the wall. Theenvironment around the carbonation limit of concrete and mortar (which is slightly alkaline), can therefore be addressed as the area inwhich iron(III)-cyanide can form easily. In a strongly alkaline area of the masonry, it only arrives at this prior stage of Iron Blue formationthrough the slow detour of the reduction of slight traces of iron(III)-cyanide to iron(II)-cyanide. A large surface area, as found in cementmortars and concrete, is especially favorable to the solid-liquid inter-face reaction between solid rust and cyanide in a liquid solution. Thesegenerally have the advantage of retaining an alkaline medium for longer periods of time, so that the cyanide accumulated in the masonryis not lost and has enough time to react with rust. Once again, a highwater content, which broadens the range of moderately alkaline acidvalues, is advantageous.406 The reduction of a part of the iron(III)-ions

to iron(II)-ions finally, the next to last step in Iron Blue formation, re-quires a moderately alkaline acid value, but also occurs in the stronglyalkaline range. A distinction can be made between three areas of dif-ferent reactivity in masonry:

1. Larger quantities of cyanide ions can accumulate in the non-carbonated portion, due to the alkaline medium, further favored bythe increased absorption of hydrogen cyanide by the still-humidmaterial. The cyanide is only bound as iron(III)-cyanide to a slight

extent. This is converted quite rapidly into the more stableiron(II)-cyanide due to its strong oxidation behavior in the alkalinemedium. An accumulation of iron(III)-cyanide will therefore take place over a longer time period.

2. In the zone of carbonation, the tendency to accumulate cyanide isreduced, since the disassociation equilibrium lies increasingly onthe side of the hydrogen cyanide. The oxidation strength of theiron(III)-cyanide is also diminished. On the other hand, the pig-

406 Very humid mortars and concretes, due to proton diffusion, exhibit no sharp carbonation, i.e.,

pH limit.




187

ment itself now becomes stable, so that increased quantities of iron(II)-cyanide will be converted into Iron Blue, intimately mixedwith the lime which is now also forming in this area, with the now

somewhat more easily soluble iron(III)-ion at the carbonationlimit.407

3. In the pH-neutral, carbonated part of the masonry, the formation isconsiderably dependent on the available cyanide concentration,which is strongly reduced there. Already formed iron(II)-cyanideis gradually converted into Iron Blue in the presence of humidity.

Table 7 shows the adsorption values of hydrogen cyanide in vari-ous building materials.409 They confirm the assumption of considerably

higher reactivity of cements compared to brick, as well as the greater tendency of fresh cement compared to older and generally more humid building materials toward accumulation of hydrogen cyanide. The hy-drogen cyanide accumulation in concrete masonry, the age of which isunfortunately not indicated, is astonishingly high. Since by definitionthere is no consid-erable difference between the com-

position of cementmortar and con-crete, it is fur-thermore not clear how the differinganalytical resultsare to be interpreted. These data

are therefore notwithout their diffi-culties.410 But atleast the tendencyof humid masonryto absorb higher

407 From the CO2 in the air and the Ca(OH)2 in the mortar.408 F. Puntigam, et al., op. cit. (note 122), pp. 35ff.409

L. Schwarz, W. Deckert, Z. Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten, 107 (1927), pp. 798-813;ibid., 109 (1929), pp. 201-212.410 The method cannot establish any possible chemical binding of hydrogen cyanide, since only

that fraction of hydrogen cyanide was measured which evaporated from the samples.

Table 7: Absorption of hydrogen cyanide byvarious building materials under the effect of 2%

HCN by volume over 24 hours.409

MATERIAL HCN [mg m –2]

Terracotta........................................................................ 55.2

Brick............................................................................... 73.0

Lime sandstone, naturally humid..............................22,740.0

Lime sandstone, briefly dried .....................................4,360.0

Lime sandstone, dried approx. ½ year at 20°C ..........2,941.0

Concrete block, dried for 3 days.................................8,148.0

Lime mortar blocks, a few days old*..........................4,800.0

Cement mortar blocks, a few days old*.........................540.0Cement mortar blocks, a month old*.............................140.0

Cement blocks, pure, a few days old* ........................1,550.0* 2.5 to 3.3% HCN by volume.408 The vol. % data, according to the authors,represent theoretical nominal values, which, in practice, however, are onlyreached up to 50% or less, through adsorption onto walls and fumigationmaterials.




188

quantities of hydrogen cyanide is confirmed (compare lime sandstone:factor 8 at equal temperature and relative atmospheric humidity, butdifferent prior history). W.A. Uglow showed in a detailed series of

tests that concrete absorbs approximately four to six times as muchhydrogen cyanide as lime mortar. He also found a strong tendency of humid building materials towards increased adsorption of hydrogencyanide. He also noted a dark blue pigmentation running through theentire concrete sample and did not therefore exclude the possibility of a chemical reaction of the hydrogen cyanide with the material.411

The durability of very high concentrations of hydrogen cyanideover longer periods of time even in dry, chemically bound cement may be seen from Graph 8. Concentrations do not fall below ¼ of the initialvalues even after three days. With daily fumigation lasting severalhours, this resulted, in this example, in average HCN concentration inthe wall swinging around approximately 100 to 200 mg hydrogen cya-nide per m2 of masonry.

The measurement values in Graph 8 were approximated by a func-tion consisting of two terms:

c(t)= 100.e –(t/0.3)+

100.e –(t/4). (6)

c(t) = HCN concentration at time tt = time in days

The first term in the above can be interpreted as desorption fromthe surface material with a τ412 of 0.3 days. The second term describesa slower desorption of hydrogen cyanide with a τ of four days, perhapscaused by the much slower diffusion through the pore water of thesamples. Larger errors relating to the drop in concentration describedhere will be made over longer periods of time because the release of

hydrogen cyanide is increasingly inhibited by physical and chemicaleffects (forming of stable compounds).

An analogous function is assumed by the absorption of hydrogencyanide:

c(t)= 100.(2-e –(t/0.3)-e –(t/4)). (7)

411 W.A. Uglow, Z. Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten, 108 (1928), pp. 108-123.412 τ is the time after which the value has fallen to the 1/e-multiple (0.368…) of the initial value.




189

This is only a correct description of the process when the concen-

tration of hydrogen cyanide in air in the room remains constant. Thefunction then reaches its maximum saturation after approximately 20days. In order to allow for such an approximation, one must reduce thegassing time involved in such a way as to equal real conditions withvariable concentrations. In case of a series of consecutive gassings andairings of masonry, a quasi-constant concentration will be reached after 20 cycles as well.

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

time [days]

c ( H C N ) [ m g / m ² ]

Graph 8: Drop in the hydrogen cyanide concentration in old, dry, cement

blocks, after 24-hour fumigation with 2.5% HCN by volume409

(see footnote

in Table 7, S. 187).

c(HCN) = 100 × e-t/0.3

+ 100 × e-t/4



191

7. Zyklon B for the Killingof Human Beings

7.1. Toxicological Effect of HCNThe effect of hydrogen cyanide is based on the fact that it para-

lyzes the respiration of every individual cell in the body. Oxygen canno longer be transported from the blood through the cell walls into the

cells.

413

As the vital cell functions are thereby starved of oxygen, theanimal or human being suffocates.Insects and, in particular, insect eggs, are considerably less sensi-

tive to hydrogen cyanide than warm-blooded animals. On the onehand, this is due to their greater resistance (slower metabolism). On theother hand, this is due to the fact that lethal concentrations of the gasmust penetrate every crack and fissure, no matter how tiny. Every hemand seam of all the garment in the property to be fumigated must befilled with the poison in order to kill, for example, every concealedlouse. Warm-blooded animals, by contrast, are rapidly exposed to highconcentrations of the gas, not only because of their size, but above alldue to their breathing through lungs.

Lethal doses of cyanide can be ingested orally, inhaled, or ab-sorbed through the skin. Oral poisoning (for example, with potassiumcyanide KCN) is very painful due to muscular convulsions caused bycell suffocation. Even though victims of poisoning by inhalation of high concentrations of hydrogen cyanide become more rapidly uncon-

scious than with oral ingestion, painful convulsions caused by muscu-lar suffocation appear in these cases as well. For this reason, execution by use of hydrogen cyanide gas, as performed in some U.S. states, hasrecently been a topic of much controversy; see chapter 1. A dose of 1mg cyanide per kg body weight is generally considered lethal. Non-lethal doses of cyanide are quickly decomposed and excreted by the body.414

413

Reversible attachment of the cyanide onto the Fe

3+

of the cell-specific enzyme of respiration,cytochromoxidase, thereby interrupting the supply of oxygen to the cells, rendering impossible the processes of respiration which are essential for the life of the cell.

414 Binding onto sulfur (to form rhodanide).




192

The bright red coloration of the blood and bruised spots, caused byover-saturation of the blood with oxygen, since the blood can no longer give off its oxygen to the cells, are generally considered, among other

things, symptomatic of hydrogen cyanide poisoning in fatal cases.17,415-

417 Testimonies describing a blue or green coloration of the victims aretherefore false.418

Absorption through the skin is especially likely when the skin has become moist, for example, as a result of sweating at work. It is gener-ally advised to avoid sweating during the handling of hydrogen cya-nide. In this regard, concentrations from 6,000 ppm419 (0.6 % by vol-ume) constitute a health hazard, while 10,000 ppm (1% by volume)can cause death in just a few minutes.420

Table 8 shows the effects of various concentrations of hydrogencyanide, found in the literature.421

Table 8: Effect of various concentrations of hydrogen cyanidein air upon human beings

2 to 5 ppm: Perceptible odor 10 ppm: Maximum permissible work site concentration, acc. to German law20 to 40 ppm: Slight symptoms after a few hours45 to 54 ppm: Tolerable for ½ to 1 hour without significant or delayed effect

100 to 200 ppm: Lethal within ½ to 1 hour 300 ppm: Rapidly fatal

F. Flury and F. Zernik indicate that 200 ppm can be fatal withinfive to ten minutes, while 270 ppm are immediately fatal.420 These arenot, of course, the results of experiments on human beings, but rather extrapolations, in which lower risk thresholds have been determined on

415 W. Wirth, C. Gloxhuber, Toxikologie, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart 1985, pp. 159f.

416 W. Forth, D. Henschler, W. Rummel, Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikolo- gie, Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim 1987, pp. 751f.

417 H.-H. Wellhöner, Allgemeine und systematische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Springer Verlag, Berlin 1988, pp. 445f.

418 This is why Michal Kula’s statement about the color of gassing victims—“ I saw then that theywere greenish”, proves that he never saw what he claims he did, see p. 131.

419 ppm stands for ‘parts per million’; here, 1 ppm HCN corresponds to 1 ml HCN per m3 (1,000,000 ml) of air.

420 F. Flury, F. Zernik, Schädliche Gase, Dämpfe, Nebel, Rauch- und Staubarten, Berlin 1931, p.405; see also M. Daunderer, Klinische Toxikologie, 30th suppl. delivery 10/87, ecomed,Landsberg 1987, pp. 4ff.; considering the age of the first source as well as the vast amount of

literature quoted in chapter 5.2.2., Pressac’s claim on page 147 of his first book (note 67) thatthe lethal dose was not known is completely false. It was also already a known fact in thosedays that HCN could be absorbed via the skin.

421 DuPont, Hydrogen Cyanide, Wilmington, Delaware 7/83, pp. 5f.



7. Z YKLON B FOR THE K ILLING OF H UMAN B EINGS

193

the grounds of safety. This will be demonstrated in the following. Tokill an average person with a body weight of 100 kg, the victim musttherefore ingest approximately 100 mg hydrogen cyanide (1 mg per

kilo body weight). The respiration of a human being at rest amounts toapproximately 15 liters of air per minute.422 With a hydrogen cyanidecontent of 0.02% (approximately 0.24 mg per liter) the victim mustinhale approximately 416 liters of air before ingesting the fatal quantityof hydrogen cyanide. At 15 liters per minute, this will take about half an hour. A very strong person can survive even this period of time. Bycontrast, a sensitive person weighing 50 kg breathing at an acceleratedrate as a result of physical effort or excitement will inhale 40 liters per minute, ingesting a fatal dose of 208 liters of air in five minutes. It isobvious from these calculations, that the data in safety instructions arealways intended to protect smaller, weaker people from accidents un-der the most unfavorable circumstances. The data given in the litera-ture as “immediately” or “rapidly fatal ” doses are furthermore so in-definite as to be unable to satisfy our purposes. In addition, they onlyrefer to the time when a victim has ingested a fatal dose, but not whendeath occurs, which can sometimes take a very long time.423

The threshold values will be different if we require even the

strongest individual, out of all conceivable individual victims, to die in just a few minutes.424 The concentrations necessary for this purposewill, by its very nature of the thing, be several times higher than thevalues indicated above. They could only be determined by a series of experiments, which is naturally impossible with human beings. Theonly data available to us are those gathered during executions with hy-drogen cyanide carried out in the United States. Leuchter speaks of concentrations of hydrogen cyanide used in executions in the USA in

the order of magnitude of 3,200 ppm. In these cases, death occurs after 4 to 10 minutes, depending on the physical constitution of the vic-tim.425 Press reports from the USA indicate that executions lastingfrom 10 to 17 minutes are the rule rather than the exception (see chap-ter 1.1.).

In relation to the quantities used, the US execution gas chamber in

422 Robert F. Schmidt, Biomaschine Mensch, Piper, Munich 1979, p. 124.423

M. Daunderer, op. cit. (note 420), p. 15.424 Among toxicologists known as the lethal dose for 100% of all victims, LD100.425 F. A. Leuchter, Boston, FAX to H. Herrmann dated April, 20, 1992, as well as private

communication from Mr. Leuchter.




194

Raleigh (North Carolina), for example, is said to use 454 g KCN inhalf concentrated sulfuric acid, leading to instant formation of hydro-gen cyanide vapor, which is even visible for a short period to the wit-

nesses in the witness room and which reaches the victim in seconds.1

As a matter of pure calculation, this generates approximately 180 g of hydrogen cyanide, corresponding to 150 liters of gas. However, since aconsiderable part of it remains dissolved in the half concentrated sulfu-ric acid (approximately 50%, see chapter 8.3.3.4.), we assume in thefollowing that approximately 90 g or 75 liters hydrogen cyanide arereleased as gas. In North Carolina, this gas arises immediately beneaththe victim, so that the victim must be exposed, immediately after the beginning of the execution process, to a concentration which probablyexceeds 10% by volume for a short period, but then falls steadily as aresult of diffusion of the hydrogen cyanide throughout the chamber.426

At a normal respiration volume of approximately 15 to 20 liter per minute and assuming an average concentration during the execution of only 0.75% by volume, approximately 1.35 to 1.8 grams of HCN will be ingested in 10 minutes (150-200 liters of inhaled air), which corre-sponds to ten to twenty times the fatal dose. In the following calcula-tions, we will assume a ten-fold overdose only, in order to kill all the

people in the chamber, with certainty, in ten minutes.

7.2. Evaporation Characteristics of Zyklon BZyklon B does not release its poison gas instantaneously, but

rather over an extended period of time. Since this period of time can bedecisive for the evaluation both of eyewitness accounts as well as of chemical analyses, it will be investigated more thoroughly in this chap-

ter.R. Irmscher of DEGESCH reported in a paper written in 1942 that,

at that time, the use of cardboard discs and gypsum (Ercco) were themost commonly used carrier material.427 The gypsum version was

426 Assuming a volume of 10 m3 in the chamber, 75 Liter HCN corresponds to 0.75% by volume,i.e., somewhat more than double the end values taken by Leuchter.

427 R. Irmscher, “ Nochmals: ‘Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure bei tiefen Temperaturen’ ”,

Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung , 1942, pp. 35f.; on the historyof the development of Zyklon B, see Wolfgang Lambrecht, “ Zyklon B—eine Ergänzung ”,VffG 1(1) (1997), pp. 2-5 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1997/1/Lambrecht1.html) as well as W.Lambrecht, O. Karl, op. cit. (note 105).




195

used—even accord-ing to eyewitnesstestimony—in the

concentrationcamps.The evapora-

tion characteristicsof this product atvarious tempera-tures, low relativehumidity of the air,and a fine distribu-tion of the carrier material are repro-duced in Graph 9 asgiven by Irmscher.The evaporation is“ seriously delayed ”at high atmospherichumidity, because

the evaporating hy-drogen cyanide withdraws considerable quantities of energy from theliquid HCN, the carrier material, and the ambient air. As a conse-quence, the temperature of the product and the ambient air drops. If thetemperature of the air reaches the dew point, atmospheric humiditycondenses out of the air onto the carrier material, which binds the hy-drogen cyanide and slows down the evaporation process.

For later references, we want to keep in mind that, at 15°C and in

the presence of lower atmospheric humidity, approximately 10% of thehydrogen cyanide used at Auschwitz have left the carrier material dur-ing the first five minutes, and approximately 50% after half an hour. Incool cellar areas with a relative humidity of approximately 100%, theevaporation times would have been “ seriously delayed ”.

The question of how Zyklon B would have behaved if spread onthe floor in a room filled with human beings, is somewhat more diffi-cult. The radiant heat of the bodies would have a slightly accelerating

effect upon the evaporation by increasing the temperature in the vicin-ity of the floor. Further acceleration of evaporation may occur due to a possible reduction in size of the carrier granules as a result of being

Graph 9: Evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanidefrom the Ercco carrier material (gypsum with some

starch) at various temperatures and finedistribution, according to R. Irmscher/DEGESCH

1942.427




196

trampled upon or crushed by falling human bodies, as well as direct bodily contact.

The relative atmospheric humidity in the cellars of crematoria II

and III, which must certainly have approached 100%, would have “ se-riously delayed ” evaporation,428 as well as the possible fluid secretionscaused by panic on the part of victims lying on the floor, which couldvery well have occurred as soon as the door was closed, that is, prior torelease of the Zyklon B. Under such conditions, a serious delay in thedischarge of the hydrogen cyanide from the carrier material wouldhave to be anticipated.

If assuming that Zyklon B introduction devices were installed insome of the Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ as attested to by MichalKula,429 such a device would have had the following effects: a) theZyklon B granules would not have been spread out, but rather wouldhave been kept together by the inner wire mesh, reducing the evapora-tion rate considerably; b) all three wire mesh columns would havedrastically reduced any air convection within them, reducing bothevaporation rate as well as the speed with which the gas spreads outinto the chamber; c) due to high humidity in the air and the lack of air convection, moisture would have condensed intensively on the Zyklon

B carrier, reducing the evaporation rate of HCN “ seriously.”The present study regarding homicidal mass gassings will be

based on the conservative assumption that the Zyklon B would at besthave behave in the manner described by Irmscher at 15°C (see above).

7.3. The Gassing of Human Beings

7.3.1. Eyewitness Testimonies

7.3.1.1. Boundary ConditionsThis chapter will examine a few related eyewitness testimonies for

a determination of the chemical, physical, and technical boundary con-ditions of the alleged homicidal gassings. A complete and detailedanalysis of the many eyewitness testimonies in the individual trials and

428

Unheated cellar rooms by their very nature, have very high relative atmospheric humidity. Asa result of the large numbers of human beings crammed into the cellar, the atmospheric hu-midity would certainly approach 100%, resulting in the condensation of water on cold objects.

429 See chapter 5.4.1.2.8., p. 130, for this.




197

in the literature would be too voluminous to include here.430 The fol-lowing survey is therefore not complete.

For a clarification of the evidence problems, an extract from the

judgment of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial may be quoted here:83

“The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery available in a

normal murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event at thetime of the murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records,expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked anytrace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eye-witness testimony was only possible in rare cases. Where the slightest doubt existed or the possibility of a confusion could not be excluded withcertainty, the court did not evaluate the testimony of witnesses […]

The general findings […] are based on […] the credible testimonyof witnesses […] Böck, in addition to the written notes of the first campcommandant Höß.”

In the opinion of the court, many of the witness testimonies pos-sessed insufficient credibility. But it nevertheless succeeded in obtain-ing testimonies from a few allegedly credible witnesses that soundedsufficiently credible to the court.

Before we analyze some of these testimonies more closely, a fewremarks are necessary about the circumstances and the atmosphere inwhich these testimonies and confessions of alleged victims and perpe-trators came about in the first couple of years after the end of WorldWar II. It was in those years that the story of the conveyor-belt likeextermination of human beings in Auschwitz and elsewhere was ele-vated to ‘common knowledge.’ Challenging this story led to a severeincrease in legal penalty for any defendant, as it still does to this day inmany countries in Europe.

According to reports by Bernard Clarke, who arrested Höß at thattime, Höß was tortured after his arrest.431 In his autobiography, Hößalso reports this and mentioned similar procedures during his Polish

430 See, in this regard, the excellent analysis of J. Graf, Auschwitz. Tätergeständnisse und Augen- zeugen, op. cit. (note 43).

431 R. Butler, Legions of Death, Arrows Books Ltd., London 1986, pp. 236f.; see: R. Faurisson,“Comment les Britanniques ont obtenu les aveux de Rudolf Hoess”, Annales d’Histoire Révi-

sionniste 1 (1987) pp. 137-152 (online: aaargh.vho.org/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF8703xx1.html); Engl.: “ How the British obtained the confessions of Rudolf Hoess”, JHR, 7(4) (1986), pp. 389 ff. (online: www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/4/Faurisson389-403.html); D. Irving, Nuremberg. The Last Battle, Focal Point, London 1996, pp. 241-246.




198

imprisonment.295 According to a report by a US Senator drawn up atthat time, mistreatment of German prisoners by Allied personnel was afrequent occurrence:432

– Burning of the skin; – Beds of the nails destroyed by ramming matches under the nails; – Torn-out fingernails; – Broken teeth; – Broken jaws; – Crushed testicles; – All kinds of wounding by beating with truncheons, brass knuckles,

and kicks; – Confinement while naked in cold, damp, and dark rooms; – Imprisonment for days in hot rooms without water; – Mock trials; – Mock judgments; – Mock executions; – Mock priests, and many other methods.

A few voices were raised at that time in the USA clearly statingthat the Nuremberg Tribunal was a case of revenge, not justice.433 These voices spoke of:

– Forced testimony under the threat of punishment; – Compelled production of all documents to the prosecution; – Refusal to provide documents or examination of documents for

the defense; – Travel and currency prohibitions against the defense.

A glance at the London Agreement, which established the legalframework for the Nuremberg Trials, reveals two remarkable articles,which are clearly incompatible with the procedures of a state under the

432 Reference is made here to the mock trials held at Dachau by the Americans; see the speech bySenator J. McCarthy, sent to Dachau as an observer on behalf of the U.S. Senate, Congres-sional Record-Senate No. 134, Sept. 26, 1949, pp. 10397ff., reproduced in full in R. Tiemann,

Der Malmedy-Prozeß, Munin, Osnabrück 1990, pp. 269ff.; see also F. Oscar, Über Galgenwächst kein Gras, Erasmus-Verlag, Braunschweig 1950, pp. 38ff.; R. Aschenauer, Macht

gegen Recht , Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Recht und Wirtschaft, Munich 1952, pp. 13ff.; FredaUtley, Kostspielige Rache, H.H. Nölke-Verlag, Hamburg 71952, esp. pp. 216ff.; Engl.: FredaUtley, The High Cost of Vengeance, Regnery, Chicago 1949.

433

See, in this regard in particular, the article in: New York Times, Feb. 23, 25, 29; March 6; July30; Oct. 7, 1948; Jan. 7, March 2, 5; May 5, 1949; Chicago Daily Tribune, Feb. 23-26, 28, 29,1948; March 12; Sept. 13, 1949; Our Sunday Visitor , USA, June 14, 1959, 15; Daily News,Washington, Jan. 9, 1949; Sunday Pictorial , Great Britain, Jan. 23, 1949.




199

rule of law. Article 19 states:434

“The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-

technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems tohave probative value.”

while Article 21 states:

“The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowl-edge but shall take judicial notice thereof [...]”

For a correct evaluation of Holocaust testimony of the witnessesand the confessions of the defendants, it is essential to pay attention to

the boundary conditions under which the so-called NSG trials wereheld435 and continue to be held.436

7.3.1.2. Eyewitness FantasiesWhat is the credibility of the eyewitness testimonies as to content?

Reference should be made at this point to a few detailed works on this problem.437 The following is a closer examination of three of the morefrequently quoted eyewitnesses: Rudolf Höß, former camp comman-

dant at Auschwitz, Richard Böck, a camp SS man of subordinate rank,as well as Henryk Tauber, former inmate and member of the “Sonder-kommando” in crematorium II in Birkenau.

The Höß statements may be consulted in the Broszat edition andread as follows:295

“Maintaining the fire at the ditches, pouring the collected fat [over the burning bodies …] They ate and smoked while dragging corpses[…]” (p. 126)

“The bodies were doused first with oil residues, and later withmethanol […] He also attempted to destroy the bodies with explosives,[…]” (p. 157ff.)

434 Reprinted in its entirety in T. Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, Little, Boston1992, pp. 645ff.; probably the best analysis of the trial itself was written by Alexander vonKnieriem, Nürnberg. Rechtliche und menschliche Probleme, Klett, Stuttgart 1953.

435 NSG = National-Sozialistische Gewaltverbrechen; National Socialist violent crimes.436 See, in this regard, Manfred Köhler (alias G. Rudolf), “The Value of Testimony and Confes-

sions Concerning the Holocaust ”, in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 85-131 (online:

www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html).437 E. Kern, Meineid gegen Deutschland , Schütz, Pr. Oldendorf, 21971; E. Gauss, Vorlesungen…,op. cit. (note 43); Jürgen Graf, Auschwitz… , op. cit. (note 43); also: M. Köhler, op. cit. (note436).




200

“Half an hour after the introduction of the gas, the door was opened and the ventilation installation was turned on. Removal of the bodies be-

gan immediately […]” (p. 166.)

and elsewhere:438

“[…]

Q But was not it [sic] quite dangerous work for these inmates to go intothese chambers and work among the bodies and among the gas

fumes? A No.Q Did they carry gas masks?

A They had some, but they did not need them, as nothing ever happened.[…]”

Anyone who has ever grilled meat knows that fat cannot bescooped up from burning flesh. Fat ignites at approximately 184°C.439 It is therefore the first thing that burns on a corpse located in a fire.Hence, it is impossible to collect the easily combustible fat during theincineration of a corpse. After all, the bodies were burnt—not grilled.

The incineration of corpses in the open air with combustible fluidsis impracticable because fluids have the property of flowing down or away and/or evaporating. When corpses, which consist of more than60% water, are burnt, this must take place with the expenditure of quitelarge quantities of fuel and great heat. In particular, open oil or meth-ane combustion would be insufficient.

The alleged attempt to destroy bodies by means of explosives re-quires no further comment. In reading such testimonies, one must in-evitably wonder as to Höß’s mental condition in writing them, as wellas that of anyone who takes such claims seriously. Unfortunately, suchtestimonies are the rule rather than the exception.440

Entering the ‘gas chamber’ without a protective filter, eating andsmoking in the ‘gas chamber’, as well as the commencement of thecorpse dragging operation immediately after the opening of the doors,would only be conceivable if there were no longer any dangerous

438 Henry Friedländer, The Holocaust , Vol. 12: “The ‘finale solution’ in the extermination campsand the aftermath”, Garland, New York 1982, p. 113, Testimony of R. Höß, taken at Nurem-

berg, April 2, 1946.439

J.H. Perry, Chemical Engineer’s Handbook , Wilmington Delaware 1949, p. 1584.440 For a more detailed study in this regard, see Arnulf Neumaier, “The Treblinka-Holocaust ”, inE. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 467-495 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndtreb.html).




201

quantity of gas in the chamber. The question of whether this was pos-sible will be the subject of chapter 7.3.2.2.

It is interesting to note that M. Broszat deleted the last pages of

Rudolf Höß’s testimony from his edition, since they contain “completely erroneous data on the numerical strength of these Jews”, asBroszat himself stated in a footnote. In these pages, Höß speaks of three million Jews in Hungary, four million in Romania, two million inBulgaria. The actual figures were lower by a factor of approximatelyten.441 In addition, the same pages contain the following, which is alsoincredible:442

“Although well-cared for and plentifully provided with bonus pay-

ments, one often saw them [the Jewish Sonderkommandos] dragging corpses with one hand, and holding and gnawing on something to eat with the other hand.

Even during the horrid work of digging up and burning the mass graves, they did not allow themselves to be disturbed while eating. Eventhe burning of their closest relatives could not shake them. […]”

This is really a bit hard to digest.Another commonly quoted witness is Henryk Tauber. Tauber was,

according to his own testimony, a member of the inmate Sonderkom-mando of crematorium II during the war. J.-C. Pressac writes that thiseyewitness testimony is the best in relation to the crematoria, which heconsiders to be 95% reliable. This testimony contains the following:443

“During the incineration of such [not emaciated] corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpsesburned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. Onoccasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the corpse be-

gan to burn the other corpses would catch light themselves. […]

Later on, as cremations succeeded one another, the furnaces burned

441 Intensive statistical studies in this regard were undertaken by W.N. Sanning, op. cit. (note 41);W. Benz, Dimension des Völkermords, Oldenbourg, Munich 1991; see also G. Rudolf, “ Holo-caust Victims: A Statistical Analysis · W. Benz and W. N. Sanning – A Comparison”, in: E.Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 183-216 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html).

442 J. Bezwinska, KL Auschwitz in den Augen der SS , Verlag des Staatlichen Auschwitz-

Museums, Auschwitz 1973, pp. 135f.443 Interrogation of Henryk Tauber dated May 25, 1945, annex 18, volume 11 of the Höß trial,quoted acc. to J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 489f.; this testimony is not untypical; seealso A. Neumaier, op. cit. (note 440).




202

thanks to the embers produced by the combustion of the corpses. So, dur-ing the incineration of fat bodies, the fires were generally extinguished.[…]

Another time, the SS chased a prisoner who was not working fast enough into a pit near the crematorium that was full of boiling human fat. At that time [summer 1944] , the corpses were incinerated in open-air pits, from which the fat flowed into a separate reservoir, dug in the ground. This fat was poured over the corpses to accelerate their combus-tion. […]”

Tauber’s claims as to self-igniting, self-combustible corpses arecompletely absurd, and in contradiction to all the laws of physical andtechnical sciences.444 He also confuses grilling with burning with rela-tion to the allegedly boiling fat from the corpses. What is more, fatcannot boil at all. It simply begins to ignite at temperatures of approximately 180-190°C.

Tauber also proves himself a liar in the technical details related byhim. The combustion gases in a crematorium oven stream from thecombustion chamber 445 through the cremation chamber containing thecorpse (muffle), through the ash chamber into the flue, which conductsthe exhaust gases to the chimney.446 If a fire had been ignited in the ash

chamber to burn the bodies located above, this would have reversed theflow of gas: fresh air would have been sucked in through the chimney,while the exhaust gases would have flowed through the muffle into thecombustion chamber, from which they would have found their way outinto the oven room. Starting the fire in the ash chamber, as described by Tauber, would have been disastrous.

On top of this, Tauber also claims that the Sonderkommandos shoved extraordinarily many corpses into each oven (up to eight) when

they heard Allied planes approaching. Tauber claims that by so doing,huge flames would have come out of the crematorium’s chimney,which they hoped would make the Allied bomber pilots aware of them.But as is common knowledge and has been pointed out many times, no

444 On the energy requirements in general and in the crematoria of Auschwitz in particular, see C.Mattogno and F. Deana, “The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau”, in: E. Gauss(ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 373-412 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html).

445 This is the so-called coke gas generator, where coke is burned with reduced oxygen supply,

producing a combustible mixture of CO and H2 (and some CO2 and H2O), which burned in themuffle under addition of air.446 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 93ff., chapter on the design and functioning of cremato-

rium ovens built in the German concentration camps at that time.




203

flames ever come out of crematorium chimneys. It is also impossible to push eight corpses in an cremation muffle whose door is just two feetwide and high.447 And apart from that, before Tauber and his co-

inmates would have been able to push eight corpses into each oven andget a huge blaze going, any plane they claim to have heard approach-ing would have long flown far, far away. Such testimonies are, to usePressac’s words, nothing but downright lies and pure invention.448

Now to the testimony of the witness Richard Böck as quoted dur-ing the Frankfurt tribunal:297

“One day, it was during the winter of 1942/43, H. asked me,whether I wanted to drive with him to a gassing action. […]

The transport train, which had already arrived, stood on the free stretch of track. […]

They were all loaded, and driven to a former farmhouse. […]

After the entire transport—there must have been approximately1,000 people—was in the building, the door was closed. Finally, an SS man came, I believe it was a Rottenführer, to our ambulance and got out a gas canister. He then went to a ladder with this gas canister. […] At the same time, I noticed that he had a gas mask on while climbing the

ladder. […] he shook […] the contents of the canister into the opening.[…] When he had closed the little door again, an indescribable crying began in the chamber. […] That lasted approximately 8-10 minutes, and then all was silent. A short time afterwards, the door was opened by in-mates and one could see a bluish cloud floating over a gigantic pile of corpses. […] At any rate, I was surprised that the inmate commandowhich was assigned to remove the bodies, entered the chamber without

gas masks, although this blue vapor floated over the corpses, from which I assumed that it was a gas. […]”

In winter of 1942/1943, no crematorium was operable in Birkenau(the first became operable in spring 1943). For this reason, the allegedvictims of homicidal mass gassings in a farmhouse as attested to byBöck are supposed to have been cremated in open-air pits close to thisfarmhouse.

In view of our previous study of the subject, we can establish:• According to professional air photo analyses of the decisive loca-

447 On cremation technology, see C. Mattogno and F. Deana, op. cit. (note 444).448 Ibid., pp. 469ff., on several claims made by the witnesses C.S. Bendel, M. Nyiszli, and H.

Tauber.




204

tions, there were no large cremation ditches, no fuel stockpile, nodevelopment of smoke or flames.449 Accordingly, the scenario of destruction is obviously false in this regard.

• One thousand people occupy a surface area of at least 200 m2

. Ac-cording to eyewitness testimonies, the farmhouses had only half this much surface area, at the most.450

• Chapter 7.1.: Hydrogen cyanide is a colorless, invisible gas.Therefore, no “blue vapor floating over the corpses” could beseen. This passage is a sign of pure fantasy, obviously suggested by the German name of HCN, “ Blausäure” (blue acid), whichonly relates, however, to the formation of the pigment Iron Blue.

• Chapter 7.2.: Since the events described are alleged to have taken place in winter, the rapidity of the procedure is incredible, sinceZyklon B only releases gas slowly at frost temperatures.

• The described entry into chambers with a high concentration of toxic gas without a protective filter is impossible; such a manner of procedure would obviously sooner or later be fatal.German public prosecutor Willy Dreßen had the following to say

about Böck’s testimony:451

“Dear Mr. […] , I enclose a copy of the eyewitness testimonies of former members of

the SS on the gassing of inmates at Auschwitz […] for your information.They are only a selection—there are numerous other such testimonies. Incontrast to yourself, I am of the opinion that these eyewitness testimoniesrelating to the fact of the occurrence of gassings of human beings, areentirely suitable to refute the denial of this fact.

Faithfully, (Dreßen), Public Prosecutor”

And yet again: “Dear Mr. […] ,

[…] Furthermore, the testimony of B ö c k is only one of numerous similar statements […]

Faithfully, (Dreßen), Public Prosecutor”

449 See also J.C. Ball, op. cit. (note 43).450 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 161ff.451

Letter from public prosecutor Willy Dreßen, Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltung Ba-den-Württemberg, Ludwigsburg, ref. 110 AR 916/89, July 26, 1989, and Oct. 11, 1989, re-spectively; see also the book by Ernst Klee, Willy Dreßen, Schöne Zeiten, S. Fischer, Frank-furt 1988: Engl.: The Good Old Days, Free Press, New York 1991.




205

Böck’s testimony was one of the few which the Frankfurt tribunalconsidered credible after careful examination, that is, the inconsisten-cies would not be so easily recognized by the layman, in contrast to the

many other testimonies. And yet it is entirely incredible.Pressac himself becomes very critical in quite a few of his pas-sages relating to the reliability and credibility of eyewitness testimo-nies;452 yet it is upon these eyewitness testimonies that all the descrip-tions of the ‘gas chamber’ killings are based. He lists the untruths, impossibilities, and exaggerations of the witnesses and explains how they presumably materialized. Finally, in an interview, he said:453

“No, no. One cannot write serious history based only upon eyewit-

ness testimonies.”At the same time, however, he bases all of his remarks on the al-

leged existence of homicidal ‘gas chambers’ exclusively on these eye-witness testimonies! And elsewhere, he states, with a naiveté whichcan hardly be surpassed:454

“Witnesses never lie, but they can be mistaken.”

Pressac seems to be the only person of the establishment whotakes notice of the progress of revisionist research. He knows that tra-ditional historiography of the Holocaust is reduced to absurdity by thefacts revealed by this research. Consequently, he keeps changing hisattitude when making public statements. The most vehement attack of the media darling Pressac on the dominating historiography occurredduring an interview published as an appendix to a PhD thesis analyzingthe history of Holocaust revisionism in France. In it, Pressac describedthe established historiography of the Holocaust as “rotten” andstated:455

“Can we alter the course? It is too late. A general correction is fac-tually and humanely impossible [...]. New documents will unavoidablyturn up and will overthrow the official certainties more and more. Thecurrent view of the world of the [National Socialist] camps, though tri-

452 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), pp. 124-128, 162, 174, 176f., 181, 229, 239, 379f., 459-502.

For additional eyewitness testimonies, see also note 442 and E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), pp. 194-239.

453

Focus no. 17/1994, pp. 118, 120.454 Die Woche, Oct. 7, 1993, p. 8455 In: Valérie Igounet, Histoire du négationnisme en France, Editions du Seuil, Paris 2000, p.

652. I thank R. Faurisson, who made me aware of this interview.




206

umphant, is doomed. What of it can be salvaged? Only little.”

In his first and so far most comprehensive book, Pressac is compelled to correct the statements of witnesses in many cases in order to

eliminate errors and, in his opinion, technical impossibilities. But whenso doing, he never reveals the basis upon which he undertakes thesecorrections. In actual fact, he merely replaces the capriciousness of ‘eyewitnesses’ with his own. Thus, the numbers of victims per gassing procedure, as estimated by Pressac, for example, are considerablylower than those estimated in the eyewitness statements, which oftenspeak of several thousand victims per gassing operation per day for crematoria II and III. One thousand people could only have been made

to enter a cellar with a surface area of 210 m2

under the maintenance of extraordinary discipline accompanied by a readiness to co-operate(!)on the part of the victims (see chapter 7.3.2.1.1.). The numbers of people reported in places by witnesses, on the other hand (2,000 andmore456) could not have been contained by morgue 1. To arrive at thenumber of victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau, as spread by sensationalistmedia and literature until the late 1980s—four million—one is in factcompelled to resort to technically impossible figures of ‘gas chamber’occupancy, as the witnesses do. At the moment, the official estimatesrange from approximately 1 to 1½ million victims,457 though in hissecond book, Pressac downgraded the ‘gas chamber’ victims to630,000458 and later even further down to 470,000-550,000,459 and inan article published in a small German periodical in early 2002, aGerman mainstream journalist attempted to reduce the death toll of theAuschwitz ‘gas chambers’ down to as little as 356,000.460 But as longas this revolutionary development is not accepted by most scholars, wewill stick to the number of one million ‘gas chamber’ victims for all

further considerations.

456 2,000 according to R. Höß (H. Friedländer, op. cit. (note 438), S. 112), as well as C.S. Bendel,3,000 according to M. Niyszli, see note 448.

457 On the correction to the number of victims in 1990, see also Werner Rademacher, “ Die Wand-lungen der Totenzahl von Auschwitz”, VffG 3(3) (1999), pp. 256-267 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1999/3/Rademacher256-267.html); Robert Faurisson: “Wieviele Tote gabes in Auschwitz?” VffG 3(3) (1999), pp. 268-272 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1999/3/Faurisson268-272.html).

458 J.-C. Pressac, Les crématoires d’Auschwitz, op. cit. (note 90), p. 147.459

J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, op. cit. (note 90), p. 202.460 F. Meyer, op. cit. (note 312). For an overview of the wide range and development of claimsabout the Auschwitz death toll, see Robert Faurisson, “ How many deaths at Auschwitz?”, The

Revisionist , 1(1) (2003), pp. 17-23 (www.vho.org/tr/2003/Faurisson17-23.html).




207

The following is a description of the homicidal gassing proceduresfor the individual installations, if one were to assume that one millionhuman beings were actually gassed:

Crematorium I: Blocking the crematorium environs to third par-ties; 500-700 victims undressing in open air (whata spectacle for all other inmates!); entry into ‘gaschamber’ (morgue) near oven room; on their wayto the ‘gas chamber,’ victims march past piles of corpses of earlier victims; introduction of ZyklonB through pillars with utilization of gas masks af-ter closure of doors; turning on of ventilators (if

available) and opening of doors after death of vic-tims (approximately five min.); evacuation of chambers without gas masks; removal and crema-tion of victims.461 According to Pressac only a fewgassings, with a total of only 10,000 victims.462

Crematoria II/III: Entry of 800 to 1,200 victims into western en-trance stairway into crematorium II; undressing inundressing cellar; travel through stairwell into

morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’); introduction of ZyklonB through pillars with utilization of gas masks;turning on ventilators after death of victims (approximately five min.); opening of doors after approximately 20 minutes; hosing down of corpses,soiled with blood, vomit, and excrement; removalof bodies without utilization of gas masks; cuttingof hair and removal of gold teeth while bodies arestill in cellar; transport with lift (payload 1.5 tons)to ground floor; there, transport through water-filled channels to ovens; cremation.302 Approxi-mately 400,000 victims for crematorium II,350,000 for crematorium III according to Pres-sac.463

Crematorium IV/V: Undressing of a few hundred victims in open air (again: what a spectacle for all other inmates!),

461 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 125.462 Ibid., pp. 131f.463 Ibid., p. 187.




208

otherwise in morgue, some of them next tocorpses of last gassing victims awaiting crema-tion; entry into ‘gas chambers’ past coal room and

doctor’s office; evacuation of the entire building;introduction of Zyklon B through hatches from aladder after closure of door(s); opening of doorsafter 15 to 20 minutes; removal of corpses tomorgue or to cremation ditches behind cremato-rium V by the Sonderkommando, some of themwearing gas masks, some not. According to Pres-sac, the number of victims can only be estimatedwith difficulty, probably approximately100,000.464 A similar scenario applies to farm-houses I and II (see chapter 5.4.3.).

7.3.1.3. Quantities of Poison Gas

7.3.1.3.1. OverviewOpinions differ as to the concentration of poison gas alleged to

have been used in the presumed executions (see next chapter). The

only indirect source available to us are the alleged execution times reported by the eyewitnesses, which in turn permit a crude estimate of the concentrations used. These reported execution times all allege agassing time of only a few minutes.465

464 Ibid., pp. 384-390.465 With relation to the killing times, see in, for example: Schwurgericht Hagen, verdict from July

24, 1970, ref. 11 Ks 1/70, p. 97 (5 min.); Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, quoted acc. to U.Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Prozeß, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 minutes inextreme cases); E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), ubiquitous (immediately up to 10 min.,

more rarely, up to 20 min.); J. Buszko (ed.), Auschwitz, Nazi Extermination Camp, InterpressPublishers, Warschau 21985, in cooperation with the Auschwitz State Museum, pp. 114 + 118(a few minutes); H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, EuropäischeVerlagsanstalt, Cologne 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few minutes, up to 10 minutes); Ham-

burger Institut für Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim1987, pp. 261ff. +294 (instantly, up to 10 min.); C. Vaillant-Couturier, in: Der Prozeß gegendie Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Miltärgerichtshof Nürnberg ( IMT ), vol.VI, p. 242 (5 to 7 min.); M. Nyiszli in: G. Schoenberner (ed.), Wir haben es gesehen, Fourier,Wiesbaden 1981, p. 250 (5 min.); C.P. Bendel in: H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, Eu-ropaverlag, Vienna 1987, p. 221 (end of screaming of victims after 2 min.); P. Broad in: B.

Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenäum, Frankfurt/Main 1968, p. 217 (4 min.), opening of doors after

10-15 minutes: A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht , C.F. Müller, Heidelberg,

2

1984, pp.58f.; K. Hölbinger in: H. Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß, Europäische Verlagsanstalt,Frankfurt/Main 1965, p. 73 (1 min.): R. Böck, ibid., p. 74 (screaming victims for 10 minutesfollowing closure of doors, followed by opening of doors, cf. note 297); H. Stark, ibid., p. 439




209

Assuming an execution time approximately corresponding to thosein US execution gas chambers (ten minutes and more at 3,200 ppmHCN, see chapter 7.1.), a concentration of at least 3,000 ppm (3.6g/m3)

would have had to have reached even the remotest corner of the chamber after only half this time (five minutes). With a free volume of 430m3 in morgue 1 of crematoria II and III,466 this corresponds to a quan-tity of hydrogen cyanide of approximately 1.5 kg released and spreadout after five minutes. Since the carrier material only releases approximately 10% of its hydrogen cyanide content after five minutes(see chapter 7.2.), at least ten times that amount would have been re-quired in order to kill in only a few minutes, i.e., this would mean theutilization of at least 15 kg of Zyklon B.467 This, of course, only applies on the condition that the hydrogen cyanide released reached thevictims immediately, which cannot be expected in large, overcrowded

(screaming victims for 10-15 minutes); F. Müller, ibid., p. 463 (8-10 min.); E. Pyš, ibid., p.748 (ventilators switched on after only a few minutes); K. Lill, ibid., p. 750 (a scream a fewseconds after the introduction of Zyklon B, pall of thick smoke exiting the chimney a fewminutes later); transcript of the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. G. Jagschitz, 3rd-5th hearing days of criminal proceedings against Gerd Honsik, April 4., April 30, May 4, 1992, ref. 20e Vr 14184and Hv 5720/90, District Court Vienna, p. 443 (2-3 min); Dokument 3868-PS, IMT volume33, pp. 275ff., quoted according to L. Rosenthal, “Endlösung der Judenfrage”, Massenmord oder “Gaskammerlüge”?, Verlag Darmstädter Blätter, Darmstadt 1979 (2 to 15 minutes inexceptional cases); R. Höß, op. cit. (note 295: 30 minutes for the entire procedure, includingventilation); Hans Münch, in G. Rudolf, “ Auschwitz-Kronzeuge Dr. Hans Münch im Ge-

spräch”, VffG, 1(3) (1997), pp. 139-190 (2 to 5 min. in winter) (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1997/3/RudMue3.html); Salmen Lewenthal, Hefte von Auschwitz, Son-derheft 1, Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos, Verlag Staatliches MuseumAuschwitz, 1972, p. 155 (sudden silence); Dov Paisikovic, in: Léon Poliakov, Auschwitz,René Julliard, 1964, pp. 159ff. (3-4 minute), Franke-Gricksch Report, in: J.-C. Pressac, op. cit.(note 67), p. 238 (one minute to kill the victims, another until the doors were opened); Rudolf Vrba alias Walter Rosenberg, Alfred Wetzler, ref. M 20/153, Yad Vashem (acc. to War Refu-

gee Board, “German Extermination Camps—Auschwitz and Birkenau”, in David S. Wyman(ed.), America and the Holocaust , volume 12, Garland, New York/London 1990, p. 20 (eve-ryone in the room was dead after three minutes); Jerzy Tabeau, in: The Extermination Campsof Auschwitz (Oswiecim) and Birkenau in Upper Silesia (10 minutes, quoted according to En-rique Aynat, Los protocolos de Auschwitz. i Una fuente historica? Verlag Garcia Hispan, Ali-cante 1990); André Lettich, Trente-quatre mois dans les Camps de Concentration, ImprimerieUnion Coopérative, Tours, 1946 (a few moments). Janda Weiss, in David E. Hackett, (ed.),The Buchenwald Report , Beck, Munich 1997, p. 394 (3 min.). If longer killing times appear inthe eyewitness testimonies, they refer, not to crematoria II and III, but, rather, to crematoriaIV/V, bunkers 1-2, or crematorium I in the Main Camp. The killings in crematoria II and IIIare therefore alleged to have been committed very quickly.

466

504 m

3

empty volume of the cellar minus 75 m

3

occupied by 1,000 persons.467 At least because the initial evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide would have led to an immedi-ate condensation of the environmental humidity onto the carrier, more or less interrupting thefurther evaporation of hydrogen cyanide; see also chapter 7.2.




210

cellars. It must therefore be considered established that quantities of atleast 20 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (ten 2 kg cans or twenty 1 kg cans)would probably have had to have been used for the gassing procedures

described.Let us state that the scenarios described by the witnesses wouldrequire a quick increase in the concentration of hydrogen cyanide eve-rywhere in the chamber. At the same time, logically, there cannot have been a simultaneous drop in the hydrogen cyanide in the chamber— such as through the respiration of the victims. Such a loss in hydrogencyanide would have had to have been overcompensated for through aneven more rapid evaporation of fresh hydrogen cyanide, because thehydrogen cyanide concentration would have had to increase for rapidexecutions. After the end of respiration due to increasing numbers of dead victims, who died in a matter of minutes, this most importantcause of a loss in hydrogen cyanide would have ceased to exist as afactor. But since Zyklon B continues to give off large amounts of hy-drogen cyanide for many more minutes, it must be assumed that thehydrogen cyanide content in such chambers would continue to increaseconstantly, and very rapidly, during the first quarter hour at least. Sincedeadly concentrations (3,200 ppm) would have had to have been

reached even in the remotest corner of the chamber even after a fewminutes, this means that the hydrogen cyanide concentration inside thechamber after approximately one quarter hour would have exceeded10,000 ppm and would have continued to rise thereafter—slowly, of course, but nevertheless constantly at all times.

To assume that the respiration of the victims locked in the chambers would have been capable of perceptibly reducing the concentra-tion of hydrogen cyanide in the air is therefore entirely in contradiction

to the eyewitness statements.468

In particular, this would have to as-sume that the victims, confined in the chamber, could have acted asquasi-living filters for the greater proportion of the time during whichthe Zyklon B was releasing hydrogen cyanide (at least one hour). Butone thousand people locked in a hermetically sealed cellar would havedied in an hour from lack of oxygen alone.

These considerations show that a concentration of hydrogen cya-

468 Such is, for example, the hypothesis brought forth by G. Wellers, op. cit. (note 55), which issimilarly incorrect in its findings, due to the incorrect hypothesis that lower quantities of Zyk-lon B were used: J. Bailer, op. cit. (note 52); W. Wegner, op. cit. (note 49).




211

nide in morgue 1 of crematoria II and III during the alleged gassingswould have had an effect on the masonry which would have been atleast as great as that occurring during disinfestation. High rates of hy-

drogen cyanide absorption would have to be expected during these pe-riods, particularly on the cool and moist masonry of cellars in cremato-ria II and III. The duration of the gassing period would have dependedabove all on the subsequent ventilation, which will be examined below.

7.3.1.3.2. Excursus 1: Poisoning or Suffocation?Because eyewitness statements about the amount of Zyklon B are

rare, and since humans are more sensitive to HCN than insects (see

chapter 7.1.), some scholars opine that only small amounts of ZyklonB were used for the alleged mass murders in Auschwitz, for example J.Bailer,54 W. Wegner,49 and G. Wellers,55 who assume an applied con-centration of 1 g per m3 (0.083 Vol.%) or less.

The few witnesses statements we have, however, claim that sev-eral kilograms of Zyklon B were used.469 In his book, Pressac fre-quently refers to a HCN concentration of 12 g per m3 or 1 vol.% usedfor executions.470 He backs this up with many witness accounts, ac-cording to which four to six 1-kg cans of Zyklon B were allegedly poured into the ‘gas chambers’ (morgues) of crematorium II and III,which indeed corresponds to a concentration of 1 vol.%.302

Pressac, on the other hand, assumes that 95 to 98% of the entireZyklon B delivered to the camp were used for the original purpose, i.e.,for delousing clothes and rooms,471 for which he relies on statementsfrom the Nuremberg tribunal.472 Pressac justifies this with the fact that,in relation to other concentration camps, where doubtlessly no exter-

469 J. Buszko (ed.), op. cit. (note 465), p. 118: 6 to 12 kg; Léon Poliakov, Harvest of Hate,Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 1971, p. 205: 5-7 kg; an analysis of the eyewitness state-ments has been undertaken by D. D. Desjardin: “ Kenneth Stern’s Critique of The Leuchter Report: A Critical Analysis”, online: codoh.com/newrevoices/nddd/ndddstern.html. Theanalysis does not, however, take account of the slow release of hydrogen cyanide by the car-rier material. See also Desjardin’s interview with F. Piper, op. cit. (note 164), where Piper talks about 6 kg per 1,400 victims.

470 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit., p. 18.471 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit., pp. 15 and 188.472 Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, British Military Tribunal, trial against B. Tesch et

al., Hamburg March 1-8, 1946, Document No. NI-12 207, quoted acc. to: U. Walendy, op. cit.(note 157), p. 83. Note: No staff member of the former Zyklon B producers was ever con-victed, because there was no evidence linking them to a crime: Degussa AG (ed.), Im Zeichenvon Sonne und Mond , Degussa AG, Frankfurt/Main 1993, pp. 148f.




212

mination took place, the Auschwitz camp did not receive higher amounts of Zyklon B deliveries, if seen in relation to the number of inmates and in relation to the material delousing facilities that doubt-

lessly operated there.The supply figures of the Auschwitz camp can be found in the protocols of the International Military Tribunal Nuremberg. In total,they reached some 19,000 kg during the years 1942 and 1943.157 Thetotal supplied amount during the entire existence of the camp from late1940 to early 1945 will hardly have exceeded 40 tons. According toPressac’s statement that not 2-5% of this was used for killings, 800 to2,000 kg of the total delivery was used for extermination of humans.

But when dividing up this amount of Zyklon B for one million people allegedly killed with it, with 1,000 victims per gassing—the‘gas chambers’ (morgues I) of crematorium II and III could hardlyhold 1,000 persons per execution—only roughly 0.8 to 2 kg HCN wasavailable for each gassing. With the morgues’ free volume of roughly430 m3,466 and after all hydrogen cyanide had evaporated from the car-rier (after more than an hour), 800 to 2,000 g of hydrogen cyanidewould result in a theoretical end concentration of 1.86 to 4.65 g per m3,which means that the concentration during the first five or ten minutes

was much lower.If, on the other hand, one million victims were killed according to

the eyewitness statements, i.e., with high concentrations in a few min-utes, those 1,000 gassing would have required 1,000×20 kg = 20 tonsof Zyklon B, or at least 50% of the entire Zyklon B delivery to thecamp.

This shows an obvious inconsistency in Pressac’s statements. Onecannot have both high concentrations during homicidal gassings and a

low percentage of the entire Zyklon B delivery to Auschwitz used for these gassings.

Let us now have a closer look at the theory endorsed by J. Bailer,54 W. Wegner,49 and G. Wellers,55 that only a small amount of HCN wasused for the killings. In such a case, the concentration reduction due tothe respiration of the victims is no longer a negligible quantity.

Per capita, the respiration of HCN is the higher, the higher the applied concentration is. The reason for this is that although the victim

incorporates lethal amounts of hydrogen cyanide in short periods of time in case of high concentrations, their organism’s reaction is de-layed. During this delay, the victim incorporates more overdoses of




213

hydrogen cyanide.Graph 10 shows the behavior of the breathing volume per minute

of persons dying of suffocation or poisoning (biochemical suffoca-

tions). Respiratory arrest occurs at the end of this period of time (at 5).Death occurs only several minutes after respiratory arrest. If one as-sumes a time period of 5 minutes until respiratory arrest, the assumed breathing volume during each single minute is: 1.: 20 l; 2.: 30 l; 3.: 50l; 4.: 80 l; 5.: 30 l.422 In total, this yields a breathing volume of ca.210 l. Furthermore, we assume that the function is independent of thelength of time until respiratory arrest. This means that the doubleamount of air is inhaled if the time period would be doubled.

Regarding morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II, we havethe following data: Volume: 504 m3; volume of 1,000 persons: ca. 75m3; resulting free air volume: ca. 430 m3. First, the oxygen content inthe room may be studied. In Table 9, the total inhaled volume of 1,000victims is given in m3 and multiples of the free air volume as a func-tion of time. The average oxygen content is reduced by 20-30% per inhalation. This results in the remaining oxygen content in the chamber as given in the last two columns. Oxygen contents below 6% are le-thal.473 So, even without adding any toxic gas, we have to reckon with

the victims being suffocated in an airtight chamber already after some45-60 minutes.

If one increases thenumber of locked-up persons, this process isaccelerated accord-ingly. However, if therewere Zyklon B holes in

the morgues I of cre-matorium II and IIIduring wartime, con-trary to the resultsachieved before, theserooms could not besealed off in an air tight

473 Y. Henderson, H.W. Haggard, Noxious Gases, Reinhold Publishing, New York 1943, pp.144f.; J.S. Haldane, J.G. Priestley, Respiration, Yale University Press, New Haven 1935, pp.223f.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1 2 3 4 5

t [arbitrary unit]

b r e

a t h i n g v o l u m e [ l / m i n ]

Graph 10: Schematic representation of thebreathing volume behavior relative to time in

case of suffocation/poisoning.




215

once, the HCN content will be reduced to ca. 37% of the initial value.As a function of time passed until respiratory arrest occurs, Table 10shows, how much HCN was incorporated by the victims in total (col-umn 3), which portion of the total content of HCN in the air this is(column 4), how much HCN had been released in total (column 5), andhow much Zyklon B at a carrier temperature of 15°C had to have been

applied to release that much HCN as is required in this period of time.The last column shows the ratio of the inhaled amount of HCN and theapplied amount. In so doing, it was assumed that the HCN concentra-tion was available to every victim right from the start. In reality, theapplied amount of hydrogen cyanide had to be a bit higher than as-sumed here (delay due to release and distribution of hydrogen cya-nide).

According to testimonies, the execution times until all victims

were dead were shorter than 10 minutes.465

When considering the de-lays caused by the release of the gas and its distribution, as well as thefact that death occurs only several minutes after respiratory arrest, thefirst two lines of Table 10, corresponding to execution times of ca. 10and 15 minutes, respectively, are at the upper limit of witness accounts.This means that an execution within a few moments or minutes wouldhave required enormous amounts of Zyklon B. Such witness accountsare therefore unrealistic. Furthermore, it must be assumed that, withthe execution times attested to, only a fraction of the applied (<10%)and at the execution time released amount of hydrogen cyanide(<60%) actually could have been incorporated by the victims. The rest

Table 10: Amount of hydrogen cyanide as a function of executiontime

(lethal dose = 80 mg/person = 80 g/1,000 persons)

Time untilrespiratoryarrest[min]

Over-dose

InhaledAmountof

HCN [g]

Portion of released

HCN [%]

releasedamount of HCN fromcarrier [g]

AppliedZyklon B(15°C) [g]

HCNinhaled/HCNapplied

[%]

5 10 800 40 2,030 28,600 3 10 6 480 63 760 5,000 10 20 4 320 86 370 1,230 26 30 3 240 95 252 625 38 45 2 160 99 161 320 50

60 1.5 120 100 120 200 60 120 1 80 100 80 100 80




216

was available to react with the walls, among other things. Therefore,one has to reckon with high adsorption rates of hydrogen cyanide especially at the cool and wet walls of the cellars of crematorium II and

III, contrary to Weller’s hypothesis, according to which this is not supposed to happen.55 According to his opinion, the little amounts of hy-drogen cyanide applied were supposedly inhaled entirely. This contra-dicts the witness accounts of the quick ‘gas chamber’ death which re-quired large amounts of hydrogen cyanide.

Finally, the application of small amounts of hydrogen cyanide of an end concentration of only 1g/m³, i.e., the use of only some 400 gZyklon B per gassing, would have been senseless, if the facilities wereindeed air-tight, which would have been imperative for their use as amass ‘gas chamber’. This is, because the victims would have died in asimilar period of time due to lack of oxygen anyway (cf. Table 9).

7.3.1.3.3. Excursus 2: HCN Loss due to AdsorptionIt is worth taking a look into the HCN losses caused during disin-

festations due to adsorption on walls and clothes, as well as due toleaks. Puntigam et al.122 describe the hydrogen cyanide concentration behavior at different locations of a delousing chamber with and with-out air circulation (“ Kreislaufverfahren”). Puntigam neither givesmeasures and loading of the chamber, nor the type of carrier materialand its distribution, nor the temperature. Since the different measuring

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 60 120 180 240

time [min]

c ( H C N ) [ V

o l . - % ] with circulating air system

without circulating air system

Graph 12: Hydrogen cyanide concentration behavior in delousing

chamber with and without circulating air systems, measuring pointsalways in center of room (intern. correspondence of DEGESCH;

values at various points differed greatly).122




217

points show different concentrations peaks, this indicates a non-evendistribution of the products in the chamber. For the sake of clarity, onlythe concentration behavior in the center of the room is reproduced inGraph 12.

The loss of hydrogen cyanide as a function of temperature in a dis-infestation chamber can be seen in Graph 14. The higher losses at

lower temperatures is caused by a higher moisture content in thegassed material and in the walls of the observed room.123

According to the already quoted publication by Schwarz et al.,409 their measurements were made in the range of room temperature. Al-though the interesting part of Graph 13 is only poorly resolved, it isnevertheless clear that under these circumstances the maximum con-centration is reached as late as 4 to 5 hours after the start. In these

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 4 8 12 16 20 24time [h]

c ( H C N ) [ V o l . - %

] empty chamber

chamber filled with clothes

Graph 13: Hydrogen cyanide concentration behavior in

disinfestation chamber with and without clothesat room temperature.

409

0 60 120 180 240time [h]

c ( H C N ) [ V o l . - % ]

Upper curve: Ideal concentration behavior without Adsorption losses.Center curve: Normal concentration behavior in a w a r m chamber.

Lower curve: Normal concentration behavior in a c o l d chamber. Graph 14: Relation between hydrogen cyanide adsorption on clothing and

temperature in a delousing chamber with circulating air system (schematic).123




218

years, circulating air systems did not yet exists, so that only the naturalair convection was responsible for distributing the gas. Remarkable isthe strong concentration reduction due to adsorption on the load, here

lifeless material to be deloused. Due to the slow increase towards themaximum concentration, it must be assumed that Puntigam’s valueswithout circulating air system (Graph 12, lower curve) were achievedat similar temperatures.

In case of hypothetical homicidal gassings, the sweat produced bythe frightened, crowded people and their HCN absorption through skinand lungs will cause similar losses, and in case of the undergroundmorgues of crematorium II and III, additional losses will occur due tothe cold and moist walls.

In order to kill all victims quickly, as attested to by the ‘eyewit-nesses’, such losses would have to be compensated by introducingeven more HCN than calculated before (chapter 7.3.1.3.1. and7.3.1.3.3.) in order to quickly reach and maintain high HCN concentra-tions everywhere in the ‘gas chamber.’

7.3.2. Critique of the Eyewitness Descriptions

7.3.2.1. Theatre of the AbsurdFirst, a few critical remarks on three topics of eyewitness statements

relating to homicidal mass gassings should be made at this point.

7.3.2.1.1. Necessity of Co-OperationJust imagine the following scene: 1,000 people of both sexes plus

children enter the undressing room with a surface area of 390 m2 (4,200 ft²). Each one would therefore have a area of only 60 cm × 60

cm (2×2 ft) in which to undress. Experience shows that people do not pack themselves tightly to the very edge of an enclosed area, unless, of course, they are quite willing to do so.474 In order to get people to dothis, the procedure must be rehearsed; they must be aware of what ishappening and what steps they must follow—and they must be willingto co-operate.

Alternatively, few people could be made to undress at a time, butthis assumes that the people who have already undressed are in the ‘gas

474 Just think of street cars or buses, where everyone remains near the door, even though there is plenty of room at the rear.




219

chamber’ and waiting patiently for the next arrival of naked inmates.Once inside the ‘gas chamber’, the same problem occurs again. Hereeach individual has only an area of 45 cm × 45 cm (1.5×1.5 ft) in

which to stand. The people must press themselves tightly together; thefirst people entering the room must proceed to the end of the room in adisciplined manner and line up against the wall. The next lot will formthe line directly in front, and so on, until the entire chamber is full,which must have taken approximately half an hour, even with perfectchoreography.

How did they get these 1,000 people to pack themselves tightlytogether, as one can expect it from soldiers who have exercised this for weeks on a parade ground? The only solution is that this must have been exercised just as intensively and disciplined as soldiers do it. Andof course, at some point in this alleged scenario, people had to realizethat they were not gathering for a shower, thus resulting in panic andlack of orderly cooperation with their murderers’ procedures.

7.3.2.1.2. Failure to Separate the SexesAll eyewitness accounts known to the author are unanimous in

claiming that the victims were not separated by sex before being sentinto the ‘gas chambers’. The eyewitness accounts of the failure to sepa-rate the sexes are incredible for the following four reasons:

1. This procedure is in contradiction to the procedures followedduring disinfestation, where, according to the same witnesses, thesexes were carefully separated.475

2. Since there were always two alleged ‘gas chambers’ of eachtype available in Birkenau (in crematorium II and III, or IV and V,or bunker I and II), there is no apparent reason why the victims

could not have been separated by sex.3. The claims were repeatedly made that the victims were made

to believe that they were going to shower or undergo disinfestation.These procedures would have necessarily separated the populace onthe basis of sex, if only because of the need for deception.

4. Particularly in the 1940s of last century, large numbers of people could only have been made to disrobe completely with others

475 See, for example, the pictures taken by the SS before and after delousing new arriving in-mates, neatly separated by sex, as published in the Serge Klarsfeld (ed.), The Auschwitz Al-bum. Lilly Jacob’s Album, New York 1980.




220

of the opposite sex if they had been threatened with force and vio-lence. But this would have nullified all the other measures of con-cealment.

7.3.2.1.3. Towel and SoapAccording to a few eyewitnesses, the victims were handed towels

and bars of soap to make them believe that they were going to take ashower.476 (Who, by the way, would go with a towel under a shower?)This statement becomes incredible given the chaos in the ‘gas chamber’: 1,000 corpses, 1,000 towels, and 1,000 bars of soap, plus vomit,urine, and blood from 1,000 victims! How was it possible to recycle

those 1,000 bars of soap? How did they clean 1,000 towels? Did theywaste 1,000 towels and 1,000 soap bars for every gassing? It can there-fore be concluded that such accounts are untrue, and witnesses testify-ing about it are not trustworthy.477

7.3.2.2. Speed of Ventilation of the ‘Gas Chambers’

7.3.2.2.1. IntroductionAn imaginary experiment may perhaps assist in clarifying a

somewhat complicated mathematical relationship: you have a bucketfilled to the brim with sea water in front of you. You now take a sec-ond bucket filled with fresh water and pour it very carefully into thefirst bucket, allowing the excess flow over the edge. Now the question:when you have emptied the second bucket of fresh water into the first,containing sea water, what is the composition of the water in the first bucket? Pure fresh water? Of course not. It will be a mixture of saltand fresh water.

7.3.2.2.2. ExcursusIn mathematics, the equation related to this problem is called a

linear, homogenous differential equation.In general, the following time behavior applies for the concentra-

tion change of a substance i with time, dci/dt, in case of air exchange,

476 Cf. the testimony of André Lettich, Thêse Fac. Med., Trent-quatre mois dans les camp de

concentration, Ed. Tours, impr. dl’Union cooperative, Paris 1946; quoted acc. to E. Kogon et al. op. cit. (note 42), p. 210.477 See also, in this regard, the detailed analysis of the testimony of SS Man Dr. Hans W. Münch:

G. Rudolf, “ Auschwitz-Kronzeuge…”, op. cit. (note 465).




221

provided that the newly added gas (free of i) is ideally mixed with theold gas:

dci

dt = −a · ci(t) (8)

i.e., that the concentration change of substance i is proportional tothe concentration ci(t) at time t.The modification of the equation yields:

⌡⌠ 1

ci(t)dci = ⌡⌠ −a · dt (9)

After integration over dc and dt, resp., this yields:ln(ci(t)) = a' − a · t (10)

or

ci(t) = a"· e−at. (11)

For t = 0, e−at = 1 and thus

a" = ci(t=0) = co (12)

with co as initial concentration (when the ventilation is started).This leads to:

ci(t) = co· e−at. (13)

From equation (8) results the initial concentration changedci(t=0)/dt:

dci(t=0)dt = –a · co (14)

Hence, we get for the constant a:

–a =dci(t=0)(dt · c0)

(15)

In case of a sufficiently low exchange volume dv per time intervaldt, the ratio of total volume V to the exchange volume dv can be intro-duced as initial concentration change (in case of infinitesimal transition(dt → 0) this is mathematically correct).

For example, if the air exchange per time unit is1

/1,000 of the total, theconcentration change per time unit is 1/1,000, too.




222

This turns (15) into

–a =dv

(dt · dV) (16)

After the time t =V·dtdv , the complete volume is exchange one time.

Therefore, a is the reciprocal of the air exchange time:

a =1

exchange time. (17)

After a single air exchange, the concentration is:

ci(t) = co· e−1

≈ 0.37 · co . (18)For the 1/x-value period (time period in which the concentration

drops to 1/x) the following applies accordingly:

t1/x =

ln(1/x) –a . (19)

Example: If it is required to lower the value down to 1% of the ini-tial value (12 g per m3, 1 Vol.%, down to 120 mg hydrogen cyanide per

m3, 0.01 Vol.%), i.e., down to 1/100 of the initial value, this results to:

t1/100 =

ln(1/100) –a ≈ 4.6 × air exchange time. (20)

The half-value period is:

t½ ≈ 0.693 –a . (21)

Therefore, the concentration has dropped down to half after roughly 2/3 of a complete air exchange. This is true, if the fresh andthe old air are mixed perfectly. However, this is not necessarily thecase, as there are two other possible scenarios:

1. Exchange of old gas only (linear, laminar flow along the entirecross-section of the room): air exchange time roughly identicalwith ventilation time: Technically not given in the facilities under consideration.

2. Exchange of mainly fresh gas (exhaust close to intake), areas of old gas partly not involved: ventilation time is a multiple of what




223

is described above. In our case, this is certainly given for the areas between the corpses, since here almost no mixing of the gasestakes place. Additionally, the unfavorable location of the air in-

takes to the exhausts leads to a partial exchange of fresh gas (air short circuit). This increases the ventilation time by a factor two tofour or more.The following chapter will determine, which scenario was given in

the alleged ‘gas chambers’.

7.3.2.2.3. Ventilation of the Morgues of Crematorium II and IIIAs shown above, when fresh air and stale air mix together, the

concentration of the latter falls to only approximately 37% of the initialvalue after one complete air exchange, and to approximately 14% after a second exchange.

Data are only available on the ventilation installations in cremato-ria II and III, so that at this point we have to ignore all other ‘gaschambers’ in this regard.478 In chapter 5.4.1.2.4., the ventilation capac-ity of morgues 1 of crematoria II and III was shown to have been 4,800m3 per hour. With a volume of free air in the morgue 1 of 430 m 3, thevolume of the room would be exchanged once in approximately 5-6minutes.466

For morgues 1 of crematoria II and III under consideration at this point, however, a further problem arises. In particular, the ventilationintake has been installed only approximately 2 m away from the ventila-tion outlet in the same wall. The distance to the ventilation outlet on theopposite wall, however, is 7.3 m, i.e., 3.5 times as far. The result, inthese cellars, is a ‘ventilation short circuit’, especially if we assume thatthe victims of the alleged mass extermination are all tightly crammed

together, especially in the middle of the room, which would further lengthen the fresh air pathway from one side of the cellar to the other.The air blown into the ventilation intake openings would therefore, for the most part, be immediately sucked out through the ventilation outletopenings located nearby.479 Therefore, it must be expected that the actualventilation time would be greatly increased in comparison to a perfectmixing of fresh air and stale air as a result of this poor design.

478

Crematorium I is deliberately left out of the discussion, since the mass murders allegedlycommitted there have, in the meantime, after all, been generally questioned.479 A reasonable regulation would have been to install the ventilation inlets on one side of the

room, and the ventilation outlets on the other side.




224

In addition, the following problem would also arise: the Zyklon Bgranules, which in the meantime would certainly have become moist,would lie trapped underneath the bodies in at least some places. Tounderstand how this would effect the ventilation, we have carried out asimulation calculation based on the following assumption:1. At 15°C, the moist Zyklon B releases hydrogen cyanide in the dry

environment in the manner described by R. Irmscher (see chapter 7.2.).

2. Reaching an average concentration of hydrogen cyanide through-out the entire chamber of approximately 5-6 g/m³ after 5 minutesand/or approximately 10-12 g/m³ after 10 minutes (0.5 or 1 Vol.-%)—necessary for the rapid killing of all victims according to theeyewitnesses—requires the use of approximately 20 kg of ZyklonB (see chapter 7.3.1.3.).

3. The ventilation is turned on after 10 minutes, reducing the concen-tration of hydrogen cyanide according to the well-known formula

(see chapter 7.3.2.2.2.)

The results may be taken from the Graph 15 for four air exchanges

0

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

t [min]

c ( H C N ) [ g / m ³ ]

one air exchange each 96 min.




Graph 15: Simulation of the concentration of hydrogen cyanide in a

hypothetical homicidal ‘gas chamber’ of the type of morgue 1 of crematorium II in Auschwitz-Birkenau, see text.




225

differing in efficiency: one air exchange every 6, 12, 24 and 96 min-utes.480 A few average values are listed in Table 11, taken from the in-dividual scenarios. The value for 5g/m3 indicates, when the HCN con-

centration falls below a value at which it is possible to enter the chamber with a gas mask, but without protective garment and without per-forming physical work. The value for 2g/m3 should lie in the vicinityof a value permitting light physical work with a gas mask, but without protective garment. The value for 0.1g/m3 indicates when the HCNconcentration falls below a concentration permitting entry of thechamber without a gas mask and without any health hazard. The col-umn with the heading “∫c(t) dt/10g/m

3” finally corresponds to a tenth of the surface area under the particular curve. The value corresponds tothe duration of a hypothetical gassing of a chamber with a constant10g/m3 HCN, when the hydrogen cyanide suddenly rises at the begin-ning of this period of time and then suddenly disappears at the end of this period. These values can now be used for simulation calculations;see next chapter.

The 6 min/air exchange applies in the absence of a short circuit of the air in the chamber. The 12 min/air exchange corresponds to thisnecessary correction. Both cases assume an empty chamber. In fact,

the ventilation of the intermediate area between the hundreds of bodies

480 For those who wish to see it written out:a. Equation for release of HCN from the carrier material (in fractions):

A(t) = e –t/a – in which t = time after the initial release of HCN in minutes – in which a = 43.5/minutes (so as to attain the velocity and low atmospheric humidity

at 15°C alleged by Irmscher, note 427) b. Equation for the reduction of the HCN content through ventilation:

B(t) = e –t/b

– in which b = necessary time for a single air exchange of the room in question.c. Equation for the actual HCN content:

i. For the first 10 minutes (no ventilation, only release of HCN):C1(t)=(1-A(t))×D – in which D = e/f – in which e = mass of Zyklon B introduced in grams) – in which f = volume of the chambers = 430 m³ (net volume, without the volume

taken up by the victims) – e has been selected so as to attain a concentration of approximately 10g/m³ after 10

minutes. For the sake of simplicity, I have used 20 kg = 20,000 g .ii. Differential equation for the actual HCN content for times after 10 minutes, i.e., with

ventilation, iteratively resolved into one minute steps:C2(t+1)=C2(t)×e –1/b+(A(t))-A(t+1))×D – in which (A(t))-A(t+1))×D is the quantity of HCN evaporating from the carrier

with each new minute.




226

allegedly lying around on the floor, and the Zyklon B trapped under-neath, will further slow the procedure to a considerable extent, so that,in relation to a hazard-free entry of the chamber, the truth will rather

lie somewhere between cases two and four or beyond them.It may be considered established that under no circumstancescould these cellars be entered without a gas mask in less than 3-4 hoursafter the beginning of the gassing. Hard physical work with gas masks, but without protective clothes, i.e., the alleged removal of the bodies,would not have been possible in less than 11/2 to 2 hours.

If assuming the existence of Zyklon B introduction devices whichallowed the removal of Zyklon after the end of the gassing, the result-ing data would, of course, look dramatically different, see Table 12.

Under such circumstances, it might have been possible to enter the ‘gaschamber’ with a gas mask for hard labor already after 30 to 45 min-utes, and without a gas mask within one to two hours. This would thenlie at least within the range of some less extravagant eyewitness ac-counts. That explains also, why Pressac and van Pelt insist on the exis-tence of these introduction columns, contrary to all physical evidenceand despite the lack of any documentary proof and reliable witnesstestimony. Without those introduction columns, however, the scenarios

described by eyewitnesses regarding a swift removal of the corpsesfrom the ‘gas chamber’ after the gassing are simply impossible.

These are, of course, only calculated guesses; if one were to ask

Table 11: Some values of the ventilation efficiency of ahypothetical homicidal ‘gas chamber’, with Zyklon B remaining in the

chamber, see text. Data in minutes.

Air exchange duration t (5g/m3

) t (2g/m3

) t (0.1g/m3

) ∫c(t) dt/10g/m3

6 24 61 192 35

12 56 97 228 63

24 81 123 254 90

96 100 144 278 118

Table 12: Some values of the ventilation efficiency of ahypothetical homicidal ‘gas chamber’, with Zyklon B removed from

chamber, see text. Data in minutes.Air exchange duration t (5g/m

3) t (2g/m

3) t (0.1g/m

3) ∫c(t) dt/10g/m

3

6 14 20 37 11

12 18 29 65 1624 22 38 92 22

96 26 47 119 28




227

me whether I would rely upon these values and enter such a ‘gaschamber’ without a gas mask, I would reply that I preferred to insistupon the performance of a traditional chemical test beforehand. The

simple reason for this is that all reliable calculation would be renderedimpossible by the Zyklon B trapped beneath the bodies, as well as bythe wet bodies moistened with hydrogen cyanide.

The rooms in crematoria IV and V which purportedly served as‘gas chambers,’ like farmhouses I and II, allegedly had no ventilationinstallation and only slight ventilation possibilities by means of a fewdoors. The use of a room without efficient ventilation installations for mass murder at a time and in a place, where even dissecting rooms,wash rooms, and laying-out rooms could be and were equipped withventilation installations, and where many ventilation fans were supply-ing lots of fresh air in disinfestation rooms right next door, is so absurdthat any rational human being ought to refuse to take such stories seri-ously.

7.3.2.3. Simulation Calculations

The following are the results a series of simulation calculations for

the determination of the relative saturation of the masonry with hydro-gen cyanide based on the assumption that similar concentrations of hydrogen cyanide are used in all cases. In so doing, a distinction ismade between two sets of circumstances:

1. Disinfestation chamber. The constant concentration assumed for the calculation amounts to 10 g/m³. A constant concentration cannot,however, be assumed, particularly for the existing epidemic disinfesta-tion installations BW 5a und 5b existing in Birkenau, since great quan-tities of hydrogen cyanide would escape through the non-airtight roof

on the one hand, and since both the masonry and the clothing wouldhave absorbed considerable quantities of hydrogen cyanide over time(see chapter 7.3.1.3.3.). We therefore assume two models, as follows:a) one gassing daily with a constant concentration over 6 hours, and b)one gassing daily with 12 hours of constant concentration.481 This

481 In order to keep the HCN concentration in those make-shift delousing chambers of BW 5a andBW 5b constant over 12 hours, this would have required the application of an initial concen-

tration at least twice or thrice as high as 10 g/m², but this would have been impossible due tolack of sufficient Zyklon B. The quantities of Zyklon B necessary for such use would havecorresponded to 24 to 30 kg per day, or approximately 9 to 11 tons per year, which is roughlythe total quantity delivered to the camp, leaving no HCN for homicidal gassings. Hence, this




228

would mean that the chamber was used around the clock, i.e., more or less 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which must be viewed as theextreme upper value.

2. Homicidal ‘gas chamber.’ Here as well, our calculation assumesa constant concentration of 10 g/m³. I have selected two different gas-sing times here: 1/20 day (72 min) and 1/100 of a day (14.4 min). Thefirst value corresponds to the average constant exposure time of ‘gaschamber’ walls to HCN if assuming no Zyklon B introduction columnsand a fairly good ventilation after the gassing (see 5 th column in Table11), the second value corresponds to the same scenario, but this timewith Zyklon B columns and a close to perfect ventilation after the gas-sing (see 5th column in Table 12).

In former editions of this expert report, I have used the equationsdetermined in chapter 6.7.4. to calculate the relative saturation of ma-sonry cyclically exposed to hydrogen cyanide. However, after usingseveral approaches on exactly how to do it, which lead to sometimesquite different results,482 I decided to refer to this equation only in or-der to establish the time it takes for masonry to reach its maximumsaturation or a quasi-constant concentration (20 days and 20 daily cy-cles, respectively). In this edition, the quasi-stationary concentration in

masonry were calculated iteratively using Fick’s law of diffusion.483 One wall model used was considered to be insulated at one end

that corresponds to the situation as given in morgues 1 of crematoria IIand III, which were built of two layers of brick wall with a insulatinglayer of tar in between.484 The other wall model had no such insulation,i.e., it lost HCN on its ‘outside,’ leading to an average concentrationwithin the entire wall which is roughly half as high as in the insulatedcase. This was the situation as it was given in the Zyklon B disinfesta-

tion rooms of BW 5a and BW 5b.Table 13 shows the results of these calculations. Whereas the av-

scenario is unrealistic for our purposes, because our scenario requires homicidal gassings; seealso chapter 7.3.1.3.

482 The equations determined in chapter 6.7.4. consist of two terms, which can be handled indi-vidually or both together, and it is not at all clear, which time value is to be used when switch-ing over from gassing to airing, which all influences the result.

483 I am not going to explain basic statistical laws of diffusion here. This law is so commonlyknown that anybody interested in it might look it up in any physics book. Maybe the iterative

steps I used where a bit too big, so there is an error margin in my calculations, but if so, it af-fects all series, so it should not make a difference regarding my comparisons.484 See chapter 5.4.1.1. and footnote 183. Though tar is not gas-tight, it still prevents most of the

water and HCN to penetrate it.




229

erage concentration profiles of the insulated wall model is constant, itis linearly decreasing in the non-insulated walls from the inside out.The maximum average values close to the inner, HCN-exposed surfaceare quite comparable to the respective constant average concentrations

in the insulated cases.I have emphasized the values of particular interest: In case of

homicidal gassings in the morgues 1 of crematoria II and III (withoutZyklon B introduction columns), the walls will reach a quasi-stationaryconcentration of 8% of their saturation concentration. In case of disin-festation chambers, the value given for 6 hours of exposure to a con-stant HCN concentration—corresponding to a round-the-clock opera-tion—leads to ca. 16% for the average value of the entire wall, and

some 30% for the surface.The values under consideration here are percent values of the satu-

ration concentration of a wall, i.e., relative values. The cases of thedisinfestation and homicidal ‘gas chamber’ are only correctly compa-rable when one considers the absolute hydrogen cyanide concentra-tions in the masonry. If, for example, one considers that, in particular,the interior walls of the disinfestation chambers intended for personaleffects were warm, dry walls, while the alleged homicidal ‘gas cham-

bers’ in crematoria II and III were cool and very moist, then, withequal gassing concentrations, one must multiply the relative concentra-tions of the homicidal ‘gas chamber’ by the factor of the increased hy-drogen cyanide absorption capability of cool, moist walls. If one as-sumes the value of 8 determined in this regard on page 187, then theabsolute average hydrogen cyanide content of the homicidal ‘gaschamber’ would be a value lying around 64% of the saturation concen-tration of a warm, dry wall in a disinfestation chamber, i.e., four timeshigher than the average hydrogen cyanide content of the disinfestationchamber wall (ca. 16%), and more than twice as high as its maximumcontent at the surface (ca. 30%). Even when assuming the existence of

Table 13: Quasi-stationary concentrations of HCN in masonry in per-cent of saturation, as a function of daily exposure time to HCN

time insulated not insulated, aver-age

not insulated, on sur-face

14.4 min 1.6% 0.8% 1.6%

72 min 7.9% 4.2% 7.8%

6 h 30.9% 16.2% 30.6%

12 h 56.1% 29.8% 56.2%




230

Zyklon B introduction columns and a close to perfect success of thesubsequent ventilation, the moist and cool homicidal ‘gas chamber’walls would still have accumulated HCN corresponding to 13% of the

average saturation of dry disinfestation walls, which is close to whatwould accumulate in those disinfestation walls (16%).As a result of the high moisture content of those underground

morgues, one can see that even with such short gassing times, the wallsof a homicidal ‘gas chamber’ accumulate a hydrogen cyanide contentwhich would be quite comparable to that of a disinfestation chamber.Much less hydrogen cyanide in the quasi-stationary condition of thehypothetical homicidal ‘gas chambers’ could only be expected, if onewere to assume absurdly short, but technically unfeasible gassingtimes, the application of very little Zyklon B, or only very few gas-sings at all.

7.3.2.4. Excursus: Capacity of Protective FiltersFilter devices to protect against hazardous and/or lethal gases and

vapors are divided a) into types according to the kind of gas to be fil-tered and b) into classes according to their capacity. Filters of class 3

with a large capacity are stored externally, usually in a container to becarried at one’s side, since they are too heavy to be carried on themask. They are connected to the mask with a hose. Filters of class 2are screwed into the mask and form the majority of all used filter types.Filters of class 1 are plug-in filters.

The service life of gas filters depends on:• Type and concentration of the harmful compound;• Air demand of the carrier, as a function of the intensity of work

performed and the personal constitution;

485 Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften, Atemschutz-Merkblatt , CarlHeymanns Verlag, Cologne Oct. 1981.

Table 14: Maximally admissible concentration of harmful compound for protection filters485

Gas filter class Maximally admissible concentration of harmful compound

1 0.1 Vol.%; 1,000 ml m –3 (ppm)2 0.5 Vol.%; 5,000 ml m –3 (ppm)3 1.0 Vol.%; 10,000 ml m –3 (ppm)

Short-term excess up to twice of the table value is permissible




231

• Humidity and temperature of the air. Needless to say that the Deutsche Institut für Normung (DIN,

German Institute for Standardization) has determined the minimum

values of break-through times of filters under standard testing condi-tions. These conditions are:• 20°C;• 70 % relative humidity of air;• 30 liters flow-through of air per minute.In Table 15 the values of different filter types are given with their

respective harmful gas.Hydrogen cyanide filters used by the allies during that time be-

longed to class 3 with filters to be carried externally. The service life of such filters at hard physical labor and 0.05 vol.% of hydrogen cyanideis given with 3 to 5 hours. At a concentration of over 1 vol.%, the gasquickly breaks through even these devices.487

R. Queisner wrote a report about his experiences with German fil-ter devices used during the Second World War for delousing proce-dures with hydrogen cyanide.488 The filter inserts “ J ” and “G” used atthat time were especially developed for being applied in air containinghydrogen cyanide and had a service life of 30 min. with a peak load of

486 DIN 3181 part 1, draft, Atemfilter für Atemschutzgeräte. Gas- und Kombinationsfilter der Gasfilter-Typen A,B,E und K. Sicherheitstechnische Anforderungen, Prüfung, Kennzeichnung ,Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, May 1987.

487 War Department, Hydrocyanic-Acid-Gas Mask , US Government Printing Office, Washington1932; War Department, Technical Manual No. 3-205, US Government Printing Office, Wash-

ington 1941.488 R. Queisner, “ Erfahrungen mit Filtereinsätzen und Gasmasken für hochgiftige Gase zur Schädlingsbekämpfung ”, Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung ,1943, pp. 190-194.

Table 15: Minimum break through times for filtersaccording to DIN 3181 part 1 in minutes486

type test gas break throughcriterion (ppm)

class 1 testconcentration



A CCl4 10 80 40 60B Cl2 1 20 20 30

H2S 10 40 40 60HCN 10* 25 25 35

E SO2 5 20 20 30K NH3 25 50 40 60

* relating to HCN + (CN)2




232

1 vol.%. Since the mask carrier is only exposed to small amounts of hydrogen cyanide during delousing activities (during distribution of the product and at the end of the gassing, the hydrogen cyanide con-

centration is rather low), experience showed that it is possible to usethe mask several hours.According to Schmidt,422 relaxed humans inhale some 14 liters of

air per minute. This can increase up to 50 to 60 liters per minute incase of heavy physical work, in extreme cases even up to 100 to 120liters.

If, according to Pressac and in agreement with the witness ac-counts, a concentration of 1 vol.% was used during the gassings, theinmates of the special commands (‘Sonderkommandos’), who carriedaway the corpses out of the ‘gas chambers’ of the crematorium IV andV as well as out of the farmhouses I/II, which did not have a ventila-tion system, had to wear gas masks. Equipped with gas filters of class2 and doing heavy physical work, they would have been exposed to ahigh concentration of toxic gas. Since hydrogen cyanide is particularlywell absorbed through sweat-wet skin, this would certainly have led tosigns of poisoning.

The minimum break-through times of corresponding modern gas

filters of class 2, type B (for hydrogen cyanide) lies at 25 min. for 0.5vol.% at an air flow-through of 30 liters per min. In case of a suffi-ciently hard physical labor, this time will be quickly cut to half or aquarter. Therefore, a modern filter of class 2 can offer only severalminutes of safety under the circumstances under consideration. Breath-ing would have been seriously hindered by these filters (max. 5.6 mbar pressure difference at 95 l per min. according to the current DIN),hence the working speed would have been slow and the demand for

resting times and forced pauses due to gas poisonings would have beenhuge. Since they were especially designed for hydrogen cyanide, thefilters of that time had a higher capacity, and consequently their durability might have been correspondingly higher, which, in turn, in-creased their service time.

Pressac writes489 that a hydrogen cyanide concentration of 1 vol.%is not tolerable even with filter mask, and that an exposure time of upto one minute is granted only in emergency cases, and this without any

heavy physical work!489 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit., (note 67), p. 16.




233

Finally, a poisoning through the sweat-wet skin would have beenavoidable under these circumstances only if the workers would haveworked with protective garments in the ‘gas chamber’, which was not

reported by any witness and which would have reduced the working performance even more. The accounts of some witnesses regarding theapplied concentrations and the quick clearing of the chamber after theexecution without protective garments and masks, on which even Pres-sac relies, exclude each other and thus can certainly not be correct.

It should not be forgotten here that hydrogen cyanide is a contact poison. Transporting corpses, on whose skin huge, possible lethalamounts of hydrogen cyanide are absorbed, had required that the spe-cial commands dealing with these corpses had to wear protectiveclothes. Finally, when considering the applied concentrations attestedto, the guards, like the special commands, would have risked their health. This is true for all ‘gas chambers’.

7.3.3. Evaluation of Eyewitnesses

It is possible to provide a satisfactory answer to the problem of theZyklon B introduction holes in the roofs of morgue 1 (the ‘gas cham-

bers’) of crematoria II and III through the interpretation of air photosand structural considerations. One must therefore conclude that theholes and cracks visible today were only put in during or after the de-struction of the building during the winter of 1944-45. This means thatthe poison gas could not have been introduced into the alleged ‘gaschambers’ in the manner described by the eyewitnesses.

The rapidity of the executions as described by the eyewitnesses, intheir extreme values (“a few moments”, “a few minutes”, “two min-utes”, etc.) cannot, once again, be attained with Zyklon B under thegiven technical conditions, and can only be attained through the use of very high quantities of Zyklon B.

Entering the ‘gas chambers’ without protective measures, the per-formance of heavy physical work in the chambers, sometimes with anaked torso, while eating and smoking, along with testimony relating tolarge quantities of toxic gas, reveals the perjury of these eyewitnesses.490

Equally false are the statements relating to the duration of ventila-tion of morgue 1 (the ‘gas chamber’) of crematoria II and III, since the

490 There are, of course, witnesses who allege that gas masks were worn. Protective garment,however, is never mentioned.




234

ventilation would be greatly influenced by various factors (hindranceof circulation by the bodies, the short circuit in the ventilation path-way, the release of hydrogen cyanide by Zyklon B). In fact, safe entry

into the ‘gas chamber’ without protective measures can hardly have been possible in less than three to four hours. Finally, heavy physicalwork could only have been conceivable before the expiration of at leastanother one and a half hours, even with gas masks.

The eyewitness testimonies relating to the alleged cremation of the bodies, finally, are riddled with fantasy: cremation in deep ditches;cremation with liquid fuels; entirely without—or with ridiculously lit-tle—fuel; the destruction of corpses with explosives; the collection of human fat. These have nothing in common with technical reality or possibility, and are largely refuted by the Allied aerial photographicevidence: no huge ditches, no smoke, no fire, no fuel storage areas.

The illogical and ridiculous— in Pressac’s words—gassing sce-narios in the ‘gas chambers’ of crematoria IV and V as well as thecomparable ones in farmhouses I and II, would have been extremelydangerous for the Sonderkommandos (see chapter 5.4.2. and 5.4.3.).Yet these ‘gas chambers’ must have been planned and built as instru-

ments of mass murder,

491

if mass gassings were already underwayelsewhere in the camp during their period of construction. All of thismust compel people accustomed to thinking in terms of technologyand the natural sciences to conclude that the Germans must have de-cided to choose absolutely the most expensive, laborious, most dan-gerous and difficult way possible in which to kill people en masse.

It would have been logical, for propaganda purposes, to have de-scribed the installations such as the disinfestation chambers intended

for personal effects located in buildings 5a and 5b as homicidal ‘gaschambers’. But this was never attempted, nor are there any eyewitnesstestimonies as to such a utilization of these premises. Furthermore, thedoors drawn in the plans of the disinfestation chambers of buildings5b—as well as the doors located there today—open inwards, whichwould have rendered it impossible to remove bodies lying in front of the doors after the mass gassings. These rooms were, therefore, cer-tainly never used as homicidal ‘gas chambers’. It is nevertheless possi-

ble that an attempt was made to represent the disinfestation chamber in491 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 447




235

building 5b as a (fake) homicidal ‘gas chamber’. The water pipes visible there hang freely in space inside the room, without any connection;only a few of them are equipped with shower heads, while they termi-

nate in the ventilation openings in the exterior wall, i.e., they were in-stalled after the removal of the disinfestation devices (ovens, ventila-tors, and so on), very probably after the German withdrawal (see Fig.20). Remarkably, all pipes and fittings have been removed from thereal shower room in the same wing (see Fig. 17). In case this is not anattempted falsification, it is still possible that this wing was clumsilyconverted into a shower room after the end of the war, when Birkenauwas used as prisoner camp for Germans. But this is not likely, sincethis building had proper showers already, so why dismantle them first,and then construct a makeshift shower in a room unsuitable for it?

Brief mention should be made at this point of the widespread no-tion that the toxic gas streamed into the alleged homicidal ‘gas chamber’ through shower heads, especially as there are even a few sucheyewitness statements. Zyklon B consists of the active ingredient, hy-drogen cyanide, adsorbed on a solid carrier material (gypsum) and onlyreleased gradually. Since it was neither a liquid nor a gas under pres-

sure, the hydrogen cyanide from this product could never have traveledthrough narrow water pipes and shower heads. Possible showers, or fake shower heads, could therefore only have been used to deceive thevictims; they could never have been used for the introduction of this poison gas. There is general unanimity as to this point, no matter whatelse might be in dispute.




236

Table 16: Evaluation of eyewitnesses

EYEWITNESS CLAIM EVALUATION Death of all victims

after 0 (instantane-ously) to 15 minutes.

If high concentrations of hydrogen cyanide are used, as in

American execution chambers, death occurs in a period of 10minutes or even later. During the process, the victim is there-fore exposed to a high overdose concentration of hydrogencyanide. Technically this is not possible with Zyklon B, sincethe Zyklon B carrier base releases the gas slowly (50% in 30to 90 minutes, according to the temperature and relative hu-midity). The distribution of the gas throughout the chamber from a few sources of hydrogen cyanide only, and the absorp-tion of the gas by the moist walls and the nearby victimswould further delay the process. Killing all the victims in a

few (less than five) minutes would be impossible. Even duringthe use of very large quantities of Zyklon B (much more than10g per m3).

Opening of the doorsto the ‘gas chamber’after the execution(and sometimes ashort ventilation time)and immediate com-mencement of transport of the bodieswithout gas masksand protective cloth-ing.

The ventilation system, if it existed, did not have the perform-ance to clear the chambers in the time frame attested to. As-suming that the victims died quickly from the high concentra-tions of toxic gas, then the workers in the Sonderkommandowould also have been killed by the gas. Working without gasmasks equipped with a filter is totally inconceivable; at highconcentrations of poison gas, even these are very unsafe.Heavy respiratory devices must be worn at concentrations of over 0.5 Vol.%, which would render the removal of the bodiesmuch more difficult. Contamination through the skin must beexpected during heavy work, involving perspiration, and dueto the high concentrations of hydrogen cyanide on the skin of the victims. At the same time, such concentrations are suffi-cient to put a stop to the workers’ ability to work (dizziness,nausea, etc.). Protective clothing is therefore required.

Blue vapor over thevictims.

Hydrogen cyanide is a colorless liquid and/or an invisible gas.The name “ Blausäure” (blue acid) is due to the reaction of hydrogen cyanide with iron, forming the iron-blue pigment.There cannot, therefore, have been any blue vapor.

Bluish/greenish col-oration of the skin of the victims.

Hydrogen cyanide blocks the oxygen supply to the cells. The blood can no longer give off oxygen to the cells. Saturation of the blood with oxygen therefore occurs; the skin of the victimtherefore has a reddish, not bluish, appearance, especially onthe mucous membranes and during post-mortem lividity. Onthe other hand, if the victims had slowly suffocated, this couldexplain bluish coloration of skin.

Attempted destructionof the bodies bymeans of explosives.

Totally unsuited and dangerous.




237

EYEWITNESS CLAIM EVALUATION Cremation of bodiesin crematorium ovenswithout fuel.

This testimony is quite absurd. Cadavers never burn due totheir own fat content alone. Additional fuel is always required.

Commencement of body transport fromthe chamber of crematoria II and III20 minutes after com-mencement of ventilation, withoutgas masks.

The unheated morgues 1 of crematoria II and III, filled with bodies, would have been incompletely ventilated in 15 to 20minutes using the allegedly built-in ventilation installation.Hydrogen cyanide released for hours from the Zyklon B dis-tributed among the bodies, release of hydrogen cyanide ab-sorbed by the skin and walls and the absence of air exchanges between the bodies would have led to ventilation timesamounting to several hours, before the cellar could have beenentered without gas masks equipped with filters.

Cremation of the

corpses in pits 1.5 to3 meters deep.

Due to the high water table in Birkenau in 1942-1994, deep

pits would have quickly filled with water. The maintenance of fires in such pits was not possible.

Cremation of thecorpses with metha-nol and/or old oil.

The complete cremation of corpses requires a high tempera-ture. Liquid fuels always burn only near and on the corpse, sothat the heat is lost upwards; in addition, they trickle downinto the subsoil in open air. Methanol evaporates very easilyand therefore has a very low flame temperature. Experimentswith cremations in the open air show that corpses can be carbonized on the outside, but not however entirely crematedwith these fuels.

Pouring escapinghuman fat over the bodies.

This is an entirely absurd testimony. If anything burns in theflesh at all, it is the fat. Since the bodies would have beenlying in the fire, the fat cannot possibly have been collectedoutside the fire by means of channels.

Flames shooting outof heavily smokingcrematorium chim-neys.

Coke fires are very short-flamed and develop only littlesmoke, and this smoke usually burns within the muffle. Evencarbonized, burning corpses do not generate any flame and dosmoke only slightly if the muffle is working inefficiently.That flames could penetrate through a 10 meter long flue anda 15 ft high chimney to the outside, is technically impossible.

Even the fire’s reflections disappear in the flue.




238

7.3.4. An Expert on Cyanide Speaks Out“Gérard Roubeix51 Av. de la Coquetterie44000 Nantes

Nantes, the 2nd Nov. 1997 to M. Michel Adamc/o ANEC

PO Box 2144530 St. Gildas-des-Bois

Sir,

Having learned about the odious persecution of which you are avictim in the name of ‘freedom of expression’, let me express all of my

sympathy and my total solidarity to you.

I have spent 20 years of my career as an engineer in the hydrogencyanide industry in the service of the groups Pechiney-Ugine-

Kuhlmann and Charbonnages de France. In particular, I have beenthe director of the St. Avold plant, which in 1970, with its production

of 40 tons of cyanides per day, was the most important plant world-wide; theoretically, this production would have allowed the lethal poisoning of 500 million human beings on a single day. This shows how I am aware of the problems regarding the handling of HCN. Well, I af-

firm that all the ‘testimonies’ I have read or heard of concerning these gas chambers, in which 2 to 3,000 people were crammed, are nothing but total fantasy.

I congratulate you for your admirable battle against the hoax. Thetruth is on its way.

[signed Roubeix] P.S: You may use this testimony, if necessary.”

Michel Adam was a teacher of history and geography in the Westof France. At the beginning of July 1997, as a former lady deportee tothe concentration camp of Ravensbrück was giving a conference at hisschool telling about her ‘memories,’ he opposed the lady several times

by using solid revisionist arguments. Michel Adam was immediatelysuspended and, after one year of troubles of all sorts, he was dismissed




239

by French Minister for the Arts Claude Allègre on account of the threefollowing official reasons:

– showing his revisionist views in front of his pupils;

– disturbing a meeting of his pupils with a former deportee; – showing doubts about the credibility of a deportee’s testimony.Already in 1998, Gérard Roubeix wrote a similar letter which has

been published elsewhere.492 He died in 2001. ANEC stands for Association normande pour l'éveil du citoyen,

(Norman Association for the Warning of Citizens), which was an asso-ciation created by the Normandy teacher Vincent Reynouard, who, justas Michel Adams before him, lost his job because of his revisionistviews and was sentenced to fines and a three months prison term.493 ANEC published 36 issues of the revisionist periodical Nouvelle Vi-

sion.

492 Annales d’Histoire Révisionniste 7 (1989), pp. 212f.493 Cf. Vincent Reynouard, “ Deutsch-Französische Völker-Freundschaft ”, VffG, 4(3&4) (2000),

pp. 410-415 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/2000/3/Reynouard410-415.html)




240




242

beings above 0.1%, for the following reasons:1. The poison gas CO was available in limitless quantities and in le-

thal concentrations at giveaway prices, substantially cheaper than

Zyklon B, on almost every street corner in the Third Reich:a) Internal combustion engines easily attain a CO content of 7% byvolume, so that it would have been suitable for mass murder. Nevertheless only a very small minority of eyewitnesses speak of the use of internal combustion engines in only one Germanconcentration camp (Sobibor).496

b) Producer gas generators generate a gaseous mixture with a proportion of CO of up to 35% by volume, using only wood or coke, air and water. These generators were installed in hundreds

of thousands of vehicles all over German-occupied Europe dur-ing the Second World War, since it was necessary to convert toalternate fuels due to the Allied oil blockade. As F.P. Berg hasshown, every member of the German Reich Government wasfamiliar with these extraordinarily economical and easily oper-ated installations with their quickly lethal toxic gas, especiallythe transport experts, whose duty it was to gradually replace allDiesel and internal combustion engines with generator gas in-

stallations. These were, in some cases, exactly the same peoplewho were entrusted with the deportation and allegedly with thekilling of Jews—such as Adolf Eichmann, for example.496 But ithas never been claimed that these installations were used for purposes of homicide.

c) Toxic city gas with a CO portion of up to 30% by volume wasavailable in every major city for a ridiculously low price. Con-sideration would obviously have been given to committing mur-

der with it.d) Process gas: The German corporate giant I.G. Farbenindustrie AG had already built a coal gasification/liquidification plantonly a few kilometers away from Auschwitz concentration campin the early 1940s. Here, by means of various conversion proc-esses, coal was converted into chemical end products, fromwhich oils, fats, fuels, and synthetic rubbers could be processed.The first step in this process is the generation of process gas,

496 See Friedrich P. Berg, “The Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture—Absurd for Murder ”,in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 435-465 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndieselgc.html).




243

which has a similar composition to coke gas or city gas. The I.G. Farbenindustrie AG factory had a concentration camp in itsimmediate vicinity by the name of Monowitz, which was con-

nected to the extensive system of more than 30 differentAuschwitz concentration camps more than 30 kilometers in Up- per Silesia and Western Poland. If the SS had looked for a simpler way to kill millions of Jews, the center of exterminationcertainly would have been built in the vicinity of Monowitz,with a direct process gas pipeline from the I.G. Farbenindustrie

AG factory.2. It would not have been necessary to order and store CO and pay

attention to the use-by date, as was necessary in the case of Zyk-lon B; carbon monoxide would have been available at all times, assoon as the economical installations were completed.

3. The handling of CO would have been considerably simpler for theexecutioners. Almost the only thing to pay attention to would have been the opening and closing of the CO valve. The handling of Zyklon B, on the other hand, would have demanded a remarkablenumber of safety precautions on the part of the executioners. Thewearing of gas masks, and, when possible, additional protectiveclothing (gloves), the careful opening of the cans with a suitabletool, the careful introduction of the carrier through the openings,the careful disposal of the Zyklon B residues.

4. CO can be introduced simply and quickly through pressure pipesor through a blower, while Zyklon B, on the other hand, releasesits toxic fumes only slowly.

5. In the case of CO, there would not have been so many problemswith ventilating the air in the mass execution areas as with hydro-gen cyanide/Zyklon B, since the introduction of CO could bestopped simply by closing a valve, and because CO does not ad-

here to surfaces and is almost insoluble in water—in extreme con-trast to hydrogen cyanide.

6. Zyklon B was scarce and expensive, and was needed everywhereto combat epidemics such as typhus, including in the army andGerman-allied armed forces, so that any avoidable squandering of it for other purposes would have been avoided—even, and espe-cially, at Auschwitz, where typhus threatened not only the lives of the inmates, but also the guards and civilians entering the camp or who lived in the vicinity. In plain English, this means that the ty-

phus epidemic in Auschwitz concentration camp threatened theextremely important production of the war industries located in




244

Upper Silesia, the second-greatest industrial region in Germanyafter the Ruhr at that time. The struggle against epidemics, for which Zyklon B was undoubtedly needed, was therefore of thegreatest importance, in larger quantities than the manufacturer,DEGESCH, was able to deliver at that time. Naturally, CO would not necessarily speed up the execution pro-

cedure in comparison to hydrogen cyanide, but it would have beensafer, more easily available nearby, less complicated, and cheaper.497

Certainly,

“the bottleneck in the extermination process […would have been] the incineration of the bodies, not the gassing itself. [An appropriateequipment provided,] A thousand people could be killed in a matter of

minutes, or an hour or two at most, counting the entire operation fromarrival at the camp to the final ventilation of the gas chamber.

Yet to burn the bodies of those thousand people […would havetaken] quite a long while.”498

As C. Mattogno and F. Deana have shown, the cremation installa-tions at Auschwitz were never able to cremate the bodies of the deadfrom the various epidemics and other unhygienic conditions of Auschwitz camp which occurred anyway, not to mention the bodiesallegedly occurring as the result of mass murders,444 this is a further proof that there was never a program of mass homicide at Auschwitz.

497

If for no other reason because, according to the establishment literature, CO was also alreadyused in connection with the euthanasia action.498 According to a part of the answer from “ Nizkor ”

(www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar29.html) to question no. 2: “Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass extermination?”(www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/debatetoc.html) of a flyer distributed by the Institute for Historical Review: 66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust , IHR, Costa Mesa, undated.



8. E VALUATION OF C HEMICAL A NALYSES

245

8. Evaluation of Chemical Analyses

8.1. Test Sample Taking and DescriptionAs far as I am aware, test samples from buildings at Auschwitz

have been analyzed by four persons or groups so far.499 1. Fred A. Leuchter, Consulting Engineers, Boston, MA, on be-

half of the defense of E. Zündel, Toronto. F.A. Leuchter marked thelocations where he took samples from crematoria in maps of these

buildings drawn by himself and reproduced in his expert report. OnlyLeuchter’s samples taken from morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of cremato-rium II are reproduced in the sketch below (Fig. 67). There is also avideo establishing Leuchter’s sample taking locations.500 J.-C. Pressachas subjected the sample taking to criticism.45 Leuchter failed to indi-cate a more exact specification of the sample material; the designationis “brick ” in all cases. The sample taking was done without regard for depth. From the traces left by Leuchter in the corresponding places in

the masonry, one must calculate sample taking depths of up to 3 cmand more.2. Prof. Dr. Jan Markiewicz, Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Re-

search, Toxicology Department, Cracow, on behalf of the AuschwitzState Museum. J. Markiewicz provides more exact data on the sampletaking locations, the type of material, and the depth taken in a sampletaking records. The control samples were taken from a disinfestationchamber in the Auschwitz main camp, the interior walls of which, ac-cording to the report, were painted during the war, so that only a pale blue tint is visible in places. This is not, therefore, unaltered masonrymaterial; thus, in case the samples were taken from the upper layer of the wall only, one has to expect lower results in comparison to an un-treated wall.56,57

3. Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf, Stuttgart, Germany, on behalf of

499 C. Mattogno (Rome) has also taken samples from some of the installations (‘gas chambers’) atBirkenau and has had them analyzed; the findings concur with those of F.A. Leuchter and G.

Rudolf. C. Mattogno, letter to the author, Rome, May 26, 1992.500 The video documentation on Leuchter’s investigations at Auschwitz can be ordered from:Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 206 Carlton Street, Toronto Canada, M5A 2L1 (E-mail: [email protected]).




246

the defense of the late Major General O. E. Remer. The samples weretaken in the presence of witnesses by hammer and chisel and immedi-ately sealed in a plastic bag. The subsequent numbering of the bags

was recorded by hand, including the measured sample taking locationand type of sample. Table 19 shows buildings, sample taking locationsand depths, as well as a brief description of the wall material. The ex-act locations are shown in the sketch of the corresponding buildings inchapter 5 of this book.

4. John C. Ball, Ball Resource Services Ltd., Delta, BC, Canada.John C. Ball has not given any details about where exactly he took hissamples, nor what kind of material it was. According to his own de-scription, at least the samples from the delousing rooms of BW 5a andBW 5b consist of a mixture of material taken at various places of theserooms, both inside and outside. Hence, the same might be true for hisother samples. For this reason, we will only briefly list Ball’s analysesresults here without going into too many details about how they are to be interpreted.

8.2. Analytical MethodsThe analyses were performed in each case respectively by:

1. Prof. Dr. J. Roth, Alpha Analytic Laboratories, Ashland, Mas-sachusetts. For the cyanide analysis, this laboratory used a procedurecarried out analogously to the German standard (see 3.).501 Controlanalyses were prepared for some test samples near the detectablethreshold of 1 mg cyanide per kg test material. The results fluctuatedup to 40%.

2. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Toxicology Depart-ment, Cracow, Poland, under Jan Markiewicz. The Polish Scientistused the micro-diffusion chamber procedure, which does not permitthe detection of Iron Blue.502 The detection threshold for other cya-nides lies at 10 µg per kg sample material.

3. Fresenius Institute, Taunusstein, Hessen, Germany, with no

501

The iron content was also determined by means of ICP spectrometer. The values lay between6 and 7.5 g per kg.502 In this procedure, the sample is to semi-concentrated sulfuric acid for 24 hours. The gases

released are only collected by means of diffusion in a KOH collector.




247

knowledge of the origins of the samples. Proof of the presence of cya-nide was produced in conformity with DIN 38 405, section D 13. Thedetection threshold lies nominally in the range from 0.5 to 0.1 mg per

kg.503

All values below 0.5 mg per kg are uncertain, and are commonlymarked as “not proven”. Control analyses were performed by the Insti-tut für Umweltanalytik Stuttgart , IUS (Institute for EnvironmentalAnalytics) (Table 20).

4. Unknown. However, the results indicate that the method usedwas similar to the one used by Leuchter/Roth and Rudolf/Fresenius.

8.3. Evaluation of Analytical Results8.3.1. F.A. Leuchter/Alpha Analytic Laboratories

All of Leuchter’s positive findings from the alleged homicidal ‘gaschamber’ lie in the vicinity of the ‘official’ detection threshold (1 mg per kg) and must be expected to exhibit very high fluctuations. Controlsample no. 32 is from the disinfestation wing of Building 5a (whichLeuchter calls “disinfestation chamber 1”). The foundations of crema-toria IV and V are alleged to have been rebuilt from the rubble of other buildings (see chapter 5.4.2). Thus, the analyses of samples originatingfrom these walls are nevertheless interesting, due to their positive find-ings in places.

That the analytical values of samples from areas protected fromenvironmental influences are just as low as results from exposed loca-tions, or not detectable at all, led Leuchter to the conclusion that theenvironmental influences could not have considerably reduced thecyanide content of the exposed buildings,504 which would be in accor-

dance with the findings in chapter 6.6. According to Leuchter, lowcyanide traces may have resulted from an isolated fumigation of themorgues for pest control, since interior disinfestations were carried outin many camp buildings at that time. The positive result (1.3 mg per kg) of Sample 28, which Leuchter took from the partition of the former washroom to the dissecting room of crematorium I, a wall which never

503 Driving out the hydrogen cyanide by boiling the sample for one hour in aqueous HCl in a

slightly reductive medium (SnCl2), Driving out in the continuous stream of air, collection inthe aqueous KOH collector. Finally, photometric or titrimetric testing depending on the con-centration in each case. Proof of iron was achieved here by the ICP spectrometer.

504 F.A. Leuchter, press release, Boston, 13. February 1990.




248

formed part of the alleged ‘gas chamber’and moreover was probably newly erectedduring the conversion to an air raid shelter,

is remarkable. This result, approximately ashigh as the rest of the samples (includingthose from the foundation walls of cremato-rium IV and V, built of unknown material)may largely be explained by three factors:

1. Cyanide traces of this minimal order of magnitude may be present anywhere,which is, however, improbable.

2. This air raid shelter, like all rooms inAuschwitz-Birkenau, was occasionallyfumigated with Zyklon B for disinfes-tation purposes.

3. Analytical values in this order of mag-nitude (near the detectable threshold)are not reproducible and therefore can-not be interpreted due to the limited ef-ficiency of the method. They are

equivalent to zero values. In view of the results to be discussed below, thisreason appears the most probable.According to Bailer, the high cyanide

content of the control samples taken byLeuchter in the disinfestation wing is to beattributed either to an artifact, an error inthe sample taking, or an analytical error. He

understands an artifact to mean that the wallof the disinfestation wing was painted with blue paint, precisely, an Iron Blue paint, atan earlier time. Bailer further expresses theopinion that no Iron Blue could form in themasonry material due to the alkaline envi-ronment. In addition, the high cyanide con-tent of 1,050 mg per kg is said to mean that the walls consist 0.1% of

pigment, which in his opinion could not possibly be true.

505

505 J. Bailer, op. cit. (note 52); similar to ibid., in B. Bailer-Galanda, et al. (ed.), op. cit. (note 54),

Fig. 67: Sketch of morgue 1 (‘gas

chamber’) of crematorium II inBirkenau with test

sample taking locationsby F.A. Leuchter:

26

• Samples 1,2,3,5 from

Masonry;

• Sample 4 from the ceil-

ing;

• Sample 6 from the pil-

lars;

• Sample 7 from the de-

bris on the ground.




249

As shown in chapter 6.5., the environment is only alkaline in thenon-carbonated masonry. It was also established that an alkaline envi-ronment even supports the accumulation of cyanide and certain other steps in the reaction towards the formation of Iron Blue. If one as-

sumes, as an extreme case, a complete conversion of all iron compounds contained in the masonry into pigment (1 to 2% iron content),the values found by Leuchter are even rather low. Whether the walls of the disinfestation wing were painted blue, i.e., whether a high cyanidecontent can only be found on the upper, i.e., the paint layer of the wall,will be discussed at a later time.

Pressac opines that the low cyanide traces in the masonry of thecrematoria are the final proof of the existence of the ‘gas chambers,’since they are still detectable today after what was, in his opinion, a

pp. 112-118

Table 17: Cyanide concentrations in the masonry of ‘gas chambers’/disinfestation chambers

According to F.A. Leuchter/Alpha Analytic Laboratories, Ashland,

Massachusetts, USATest sample no. Sample taking location CN-[mg per kg]

1-7 Crematorium II, morgue 1 0.08 Crematorium III, morgue 1 1.99 Crematorium III, morgue 1 6.7

10,11 Crematorium III, morgue 1 0.012 Door sealing 0.0

13,14 Crematorium IV 0.015 Crematorium IV 2.316 Crematorium IV 1.4

17-19 Crematorium IV 0.020 Crematorium IV 1.421 Crematorium V 4.422 Crematorium V 1.7

23,24 Crematorium V 0.025 Crematorium I, morgue 3.826 Crematorium I, morgue 1.327 Crematorium I, morgue 1.428 Crematorium I, wash room 1.329 Crematorium I, morgue 7.9

30 Crematorium I, morgue 1.131 Crematorium I, morgue 0.032 Disinfestation chamber 1 1,050.0

The morgue of crematorium I and morgue 1 of crematorium II are alleged to have beenhomicidal ‘gas chambers’.




250

short exposition time and low reactivity of hydrogen cyanide on coolmasonry and despite corrosion and erosion.506 He furthermore expresses the opinion that warm walls would be necessary for the forma-

tion of the pigment.507

Just how unrealistic this opinion really is, hasalready been shown: Firstly, the pigment formed is durable (chapter 6.6.); secondly, cool and moist walls have a higher reactivity to pig-ment formation than dry and warm walls (chapter 6.5.); thirdly,Leuchter’s Sample no. 28 proves that the cyanide traces are not caused by homicidal gassings.

8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow

The analytical values shown in Table 18 were never published bythe Jan Sehn Institute. They only became public knowledge due to anact of indiscretion. The results appear to suggest that the alleged ‘gaschambers’ exhibit either no cyanide residues at all or values which areclearly lower than those found in samples taken from the disinfestationchambers. The scientist responsible, Prof. Markiewicz, writes about thechemistry involved:56

“Hydrogen cyanide is a weak acid, which has the result that its salts

decompose slightly in the presence of stronger acids. One of these stronger acids is carbonic acid, which arises from the reaction betweencarbon dioxide and water. [Even] stronger acids, such as, for example,

sulfuric acid, decompose cyanide even more easily. Complex compoundswith cyanide ions with heavy metals are more durable. Among suchcompounds is the already mentioned ‘Prussian Blue’ [=Iron Blue] , but even this decomposes slowly in an acid environment.

One could hardly expect, therefore, that building materials (plaster,brick) exposed to environmental influences (precipitation, acid oxides,

especially sulfuric and nitric monoxide) would contain derivative compounds of cyanides after a period of 45 years.”

This contradicts the facts established above, and so to repeat:a) Carbon dioxide is only slightly soluble in water and hardly forms

carbonic acid in water at all, and therefore the cyanide salts cannot“decompose” (see chapter 6.5.4.1. and note 349; actually, the wa-ter is responsible for the decomposition);

b) Iron Blue (Prussian Blue) is extraordinarily stable in acids and is

506 Op. cit.(note 45); ibid., op. cit. (note 67), p. 133.507 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 53.




251

not destroyed by the influences of weathering, even over decades(chapter 6.6.).In a private exchange of correspondence with Werner Wegner,

Prof. Markiewicz displayed his ignorance once again:508

“VIII. Water activates many chemical processes. The chamberswere certainly moist. What kind of influence this exerts upon the binding of HCN by cement (wall plaster)—is unknown to us. […]

IX. The blue stains on the exterior walls of Building 5a are not eas-ily explained. Above all, we must examine whether or not it is actual Ber-lin Blue [=Iron Blue…]”

In a later study, these authors published additional analysis resultsof samples taken later, using the same analytic method. According tothese analyses, the cyanide concentration of samples taken in a disinfe-station chamber and in alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ were in therange of 0.0 to 0.8 and 0.0 to 0.6 mg/kg, respectively. This study also

508 Letter from the Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Expert Opinions, Department for Forensic Toxicology, Cracow, to W. Wegner, undated (winter 91/92), (illegible signature) un-

published.

Table 18: Cyanide concentrations in the masonry of ‘gaschambers’/ disinfestation chambers

According to the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Department for

Toxicology, Cracow, Poland, data in mg per kgNo. Building Sample taking location and -depth Material CN –

1 DisinfestationBlock 3

Room 4, around the ventilator opening, 2 mm

Plaster 0.068


Room 4, next to doors to Room 3,2 mm

Plaster 0.036


Room 3, below window, opposite,2 mm

Plaster 0.076


Door opening between Room2 and 1, 2 mm upper left

Plaster 0.140


Like Nr. 8, lower left Plaster 0.404


Room 1, Ventilator opening, 2 mm Plaster 0.528


Like 10, light blue Plaster 0.588

15 Crematorium II,morgue 1

Concrete support columns Plaster (?) 0.024

4 additional samples from crematorium II, 1 from crematorium I, 1 from crematorium V, in each casean alleged ‘gas chamber’, and 2 control samples contained demonstrable traces of CN – .




252

discussed the selection of the analytical method.57 This was said tohave been selected because the authors could not imagine how blueiron cyanide compounds could form in the masonry:

“It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place.”

They furthermore assume, together with J. Bailer,52,54 that the blue pigmentation of the disinfestation chamber walls could be due to a coatof paint. To exclude this pigmentation from the analysis, they decidedto apply a method which is insensitive to iron cyanides.

An exchange of correspondence with myself in 1995 once again

revealed the general incompetence with which the Polish researchersapproached this set of problems.58,59

A more detailed discussion of the Polish findings appears in chap-ter 8.4.2.

8.3.3. G. Rudolf/Fresenius InstituteOnly a few samples were taken from the alleged homicidal ‘gas

chambers.’ Care was taken to ensure that samples were only taken

from material not exposed to weathering. Only a few places in morgue1 (the alleged ‘gas chamber’) in crematorium II at Birkenau, where a pillar supports the roof even today and has therefore visibly protected both the underside of the roof and parts of the wall from all influenceof weathering, exemplified by the deposition of spider webs manyyears old and the absence of any trace of lime precipitation on the con-crete or mortar, which would be caused by rain water.

Many samples have already been taken from the alleged ‘gas

chambers’ by the Cracow team and Leuchter, all with at least nearlynegative results. Since it was above all a matter of clarifying the ques-tion of which circumstances favor the formation of pigment and sinceclearly positive findings were not to be expected according to theanalyses performed in the alleged ‘gas chambers’ thus far, the samplegathering took place chiefly in the disinfestation chambers of Build-ings 5a and 5b in construction section Ia and/or Ib. It is known thattheir walls not only contain large quantities of pigment, but that their age

also corresponds approximately to that of the crematoria on the samelocation, which cannot be said of the buildings in the main camp. Theage can, but need not, have an influence on the chemistry of the wall




253

materials. Furthermore, these buildings are not so much in the spotlightof the museum activity as those in the main camp, and therefore rather permit hope of an absence of subsequent building alterations.

Finally, samples were taken from a few inmate barracks to exam-ine Leuchter’s argument that low cyanide traces could also result froma few fumigations for pest control. The numbering of the barracks cor-responds to those found on the barracks today.509 See also, in this re-gard, Fig. 12.

8.3.3.1. Samples 1-4: Crematorium II, Morgue 1On the taking of samples 1 to 3, see Figure 26 (page 92). An ex-

tremely high concentration of cyanide on the surface of the materialmust generally be expected. To investigate this, sample 1 contains, principally, concrete prongs from the ceiling/underside of the roof (caused by wooden planking), that is, the most exposed part of theconcrete, as well as material from the uppermost layer of concrete, 1 to2 cm thick, including a piece up to a depth of approximately 3 mm.

Sample 2 contains concrete to a depth of 5 mm, taken from the place at which the piece extending inward up to a depth of 3 mm was

obtained in sample 1.Separation between material from the topmost layer (Sample 1)and lower layers (Sample 2) was not entirely possible due to the ex-treme hardness of the concrete.

Sample 3 is a harder plaster, obviously rich in cement, extendingto the first row of bricks.

Sample 4 originates from the plaster of the concrete beam in thechimney wing (rubbish incineration) of crematorium II. It is only inter-esting as a blind sample in addition to the others.

The results lie in the same order of magnitude as Leuchter’s posi-tive findings from other alleged ‘gas chambers’, although Leuchter hadno positive results in samples from morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of cre-matorium II. The difference between Samples 1 and 2 may indicatethat a depth profile is actually prevalent in the concrete. Table 20shows a list of control analyses. Sample 3 mentioned above with a low positive result of 6.7 mg/kg now has a value below the detectablethreshold (0.5 mg per kg). This confirms the statement made in chapter

8.2. that values near the detectable threshold are not reproducible.509 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 514, plan of Birkenau camp with barracks numbering.




254

%

F e

- - - - - - - - 7 5 -

3 6

2 8

2 7 3

. 5

c [ F e ]

1 3 , 0 0 0

2 0 , 0 0 0

1 0 , 0 0 0

1 1 , 0 0 0

9 , 4 0 0

4 , 4 0 0

1 9 , 0 0 0

1 1 , 0 0 0

1 2 , 0 0 0

1 0 , 0 0 0

6 , 0 0 0

8 , 5 0 0

9 , 0 0 0

2 5 , 0 0 0

c [ C N – ]

7 . 2

0 . 6 6 . 7

0 . 1 0 . 6

< 0 . 1

0 . 3 2 . 7

1 1 , 0 0 0 . 0

3 . 6

2 , 6 4 0 . 0

2 , 9 0 0 . 0

3 , 0 0 0 . 0

1 , 0 3 5 . 0

M

a t e r i a l

C

o n c r e t e

C

o n c r e t e

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

M

o r t a r

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

P

l a s t e r

B

r i c k

S a m p l i n g l o c a t i o n a n d d e p t h

M o r g u

e 1 , c e i l i n g , b e t w e e n 2 . a n d 3

. s u p p o r t i n g p i l l a r f r o m t h e

s o u t h , r e m o v a l o f m a t e r i a l f r o m a b r

o a d a r e a , c o n c r e t e d r i p s

i n c l . a

s m a l l p i e c e o f d e e p e r m a t e r i a

l , 0 - 3 m m .

a s 1 , 1 - 5 m m .

I n n e r s i d e o f w e s t e r n w a l l o f m o r g u e

1 , 0 - 1 , 5 c m , s e e F i g u r e

4 3 ( p a

g e 1 1 9 ) .

I n n e r s i d e o f t h e n o r t h e r n w a l l o f t h e

c h i m n e y w i n g , g a r b a g e

W a l l s

e p a r a t i n g b e r t h , u n d e r n e a t h t h e c r o s s i n g b e a m o f o n e

b e d i n

t h e l a r g e r o o m , 2 n d r o w o f b e r t h s f r o m t h e e n t r a n c e ,

f i r s t b e r t h t o t h e r i g h t ( s e p a r a t i n g w a

l l ) , c a . 5 · 5 · 5 c m

3 b

i g .

S e p a r

a t e

r o o m

i n

t h e

w e s t , i n t e r i o r w a l l , m o r t a r b e t w e e n

b r i c k s , 0 - 1 c m .

a s 6 , a t t h e e n t r a n c e d i r e c t l y t o t h e r i g h t , 0 - 1 c m .

a s 5 , b e h i n d b e a m r e s t .

I n s i d e

o f e x t e r n a l w a l l ( W e s t ) , 1 2 0 c

m f r o m n o r t h e r n w a l l , 1 5 5

c m f r o

m t h e f l o o r , 0 - 2 m m .

I n t e r n a l w a l l ( s o u t h ) , 2 4 0 c m f r o m w

e s t e r n w a l l , 1 7 0 c m f r o m

t h e f l o

o r , 0 - 2 m m .

a s 9 , 1 - 1 0 m m .

E a s t e r n w a l l ( i n s i d e ) , 1 7 0 c m f r o m n

o r t h e r n w a l l , 1 7 0 c m f r o m

f l o o r , ( e a s t e r n h o t a i r c h a m b e r ) , 0 - 2

m m .

a s 1 2 , 2 - 1 0 m m .

O u t s i d

e w e s t e r n w a l l , 4 0 c m f r o m s o u t h e r n w a l l , 1 6 0 c m f r o m

t h e g r o u n d , 0 - 5 m m .

B u i l d i n g

C r e m a I I

C r e m a I I

C r e m a I I

C r e m a I I

B 1 b B a r r a c k 2 0

B 1 b B a r r a c k 2 0

B 1 b B a r r a c k 2 0

B 1 b B a r r a c k 1 3

B 1 a B W 5 a

B 1 a B W 5 a

B 1 a B W 5 a

B 1 a B W 5 a

B 1 a B W 5 a

B 1 a B W 5 a

T a b l e 1 9 : C y a n

i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n m a s o n r y o f ‘ g a s c h a m b e r s ’ / d e l o u s i n g c h a m b e r s

A c c o r d i n g t o G . R u d o l f / I n s t i t u t F r e s e n i u s , T a u n u s s t e i n , H e s

s e n , G e r m a n y

C o n c e n t r a t i o n v a l u e s i n m g p e r k g ; % F e : P o r t i o n o f t o t a l i r o n c o n t e n t c o n v e r t e d t o I r o n

B l u e , a s s u m i n g t h a t a l l d e t e c t e d

c y a n i d e w a s p r e s e n t a s I r o n

B l u e .

N o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4




255

% F e

1 3 - -

1 7

7 4 -

3 5

3 3

5 9 -

3 4 - - - -

1 , 0 0 , 9 1 , 0 1 , 1

c [ F

e ]

1 0 , 0

0 0 n

. b .

n . b .

4 7 , 0

0 0

1 5 , 0

0 0 n

. b .

4 , 3

0 0

9 , 5

0 0

1 1 , 0

0 0

1 8 , 0

0 0

1 1 , 0

0 0

8 , 1

0 0

1 3 , 0

0 0

3 5 , 0

0 0 *

3 5 , 0

0 0 *

8 , 8

0 0 *

8 , 8

0 0 *

4 , 5

0 0 *

4 , 5

0 0 *

c [ C N – ]

1 , 5 6 0 . 0

5 6 . 0

2 , 4 0 0 . 0

1 0 , 0 0 0 . 0

1 3 , 5 0 0 . 0

7 , 1 5 0 . 0

1 , 8 6 0 . 0

3 , 8 8 0 . 0

7 , 8 5 0 . 0

0 . 3

4 , 5 3 0 . 0

0 . 3 0 . 1 9 . 6 0 . 1

1 0 9 * *

9 4 * *

5 3 * *

5 8 * *

M a t e r i a l

M o r t a r

B r i c k

B r i c k

B r i c k

P l a s t e r

W o o d

P l a s t e r

P l a s t e r

P l a s t e r

M o r t a r

P l a s t e r

P l a s t e r

M o r t a r

B r i c k

B r i c k

C e m e n t M o r t a r

C e m e n t M o r t a r

L i m e M o r t a r

L i m e M o r t a r

S a m p l i n g l o c

a t i o n a n d d e p t h

O u t s i d e s o u t h e r n w a l l , 4 0 c m f r o m w e s t e r n

w a l l , 2 1 0 c m f r o m t h e

g r o u n d , 0 - 3 m m .

a s a , > 0 - 5 m

m , w i t h p i g m e n t l a y e r r e m o v e

d .

a s b , r e m o v e

d p i g m e n t l a y e r , < 1 m m .

O u t s i d e s o u t h e r n w a l l , 2 m f r o m e n t r a n c e d o o r , 1 m f r o m t h e g r o u n d ,

0 - 7 m m .

I n s i d e s o u t h e r n w a l l , 1 3 0 c m f r o m e a s t e r n

w a l l , 1 3 0 c m f r o m t h e f l o o r ,

4 - 1 0 m m .

F l o o r a r e a o f d o o r p o s t o f h o t a i r d e l o u s i n g

c h a m b e r , e a s t e r n c h a m -

b e r , p o i n t i n g

t o t h e m a i n w i n g , 0 - 5 m m .

I n s i d e n o r t h e

r n w a l l , 2 3 0 c m f r o m e a s t e r n w a l l , 9 0 c m f r o m t h e f l o o r ,

0 - 4 m m .

a s 1 9 a , 4 - 8 m

m .

I n s i d e e x t e r i o r w a l l ( w e s t ) , 4 0 c m f r o m s o u

t h e r n w a l l , 2 1 0 c m f r o m t h e

f l o o r , 0 - 3 m m

.

I n t e r i o r w a l l ( e a s t ) f r o m w e s t e r n w a l l , 3 0 c m

f r o m d o o r , 1 9 0 c m f r o m

t h e f l o o r , 1 0 - 5 0 m m .

I n s i d e o f e x t e r i o r w a l l ( s o u t h ) , 4 0 c m f r o m w e s t e r n w a l l 1 5 5 c m f r o m

t h e f l o o r , 3 - 1 0 m m .

S p e c i a l r o o m

n o r t h w e s t , i n s i d e e x t e r i o r w a

l l ( n o r t h ) , 0 - 5 m m .

M a i n r o o m i n

s i d e e x t e r i o r w a l l , ( n o r t h ) , 0 - 5

m m .

U n t r e a t e d b r i c k , 0 - 5 m m .

1 6 h i n 0 . 3 v o l . % H C N , 0 - 5 m m , s e e t e x t .

2 4 ¾ h i n 2 v

o l . % H C N , + 1 g H 2 O , 2 0 m m ,

1 0 0 g .

a s 2 7 , w i t h o u

t a d d e d H 2 O , 1 0 8 g .

a s 2 8 , 9 4 g .

a s 2 8 , + 2 g H

2 O , 9 6 g .

B

u i l d i n g

B

1 a B W 5 a

B

1 a B W 5 a

B

1 a B W 5 a

B

1 b B W 5

b

B

1 b B W 5

b

B

1 a B W 5 a

B

1 b B W 5

b

B

1 b B W 5

b

B

1 a B W 5 a

B

1 a B W 5 a

B

1 a B W 5 a

B

1 a B a r r a c k 3

B

1 a B a r r a c k 3

E

x p e r i m e n t

E

x p e r i m e n t

E

x p e r i m e n t

E

x p e r i m e n t

E

x p e r i m e n t

E

x p e r i m e n t

T a b l e 1 9 c o n t i n u e d : A n a l y s e s r e s u l t s R u d o l f / F r e s e n

i u s

N o 1 5 a

1 5 b

1 5 c 1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9 a

1 9 b

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

C N – v a l u e s b e t w e e n 0 . 1 a n d 0 . 5 m g / k g a r e c o n s i d e r e d u n c e r t a i n ( N N ) ; n . d

. = n o t d e t e r m i n e d ; * = o w n a n a l y s e s ; * * = I n s t i t u t f ü r U m w e l t a n a l y t i k , S t u

t t g a r t ( I U S ) .




256




257




258

8.3.3.2. Samples 5 to 8 and 23, 24: Inmate Barracks

Samples 5 and 8 are from a large lump of plaster a few centimetersthick taken from the large room of the respective barracks (see Table

19, p. 254). A depth profile was not drawn up; the values must there-fore be viewed as average values. Samples 6 and 7 are from the specialroom located at the west end of these barracks. Samples 23 and 24 arefrom the exterior wall of the large room of a third barrack.

Quantities of cyanide on the order of magnitude of those found byLeuchter in the alleged ‘gas chambers’ can apparently also be found inthe wall material of the inmate barracks. This is indicated by the resultsof Sample 8. All others are also positive, but notably lower. In thiscase as well, the control analysis (Table 20, p. 258) failed to yield re-

producible results.

8.3.3.3. Samples 9 to 22: Disinfestation Building

With regards to the sample taking locations of the individual samples, see Figs. 17f. Judging from the consistency, the material used to build the brick walls of buildings 5a and 5b is a mortar rich in sand butextremely poor in cement (extremely crumbly), covered with a limemortar plaster.

Building 5a: What is remarkable about the outside of the exterior walls of the disinfestation chamber of BW 5a is that, in places, it ex-

Table 20: Analysis results from the Institut Freseniusand the Institut für Umweltanalytik, Stuttgart (IUS)

In both cases the cyanide demonstration took place according to

DIN 38405/D13. Data in mg CN

–

per kg.Sample Sample taking location Fresenius IUS

3 Morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’), cre-matorium II, wall plaster 0-1.5 cm

6.7 < NG

8 1b barracks 13, partition wall of berth, 3-5 cm

2.7 < NG

11 B1a, building 5a, interior side of exterior wall (west), 1-10 mm

2,640.0 1,430*

25 Untreated brick 9.6 9.626 3 additional samples of fumigated

brick

- <NG*

* This sample was examined according to DIN 35 405/D14. Here in con-trast to D13 no cadmium salt was added. Nothing is known as to the effectson the results. Demonstrable threshold (NG) in each case 0.5 mg per kg.




259

hibits blue bricks and mortar joints (see 68, above). Sample 14 is aloose fragment of brick which is clearly dark blue at all points facingoutwards and therefore exposed to weathering. Sample 15a is mortar from the south wall, only the topmost layer of which was blue to adepth of approximately 1 mm. The cyanide value at this point musthave been above the average value of the first approximately 3 mm.Sample 15b is a fragment of brick, the blue layer of which was sepa-rated with a spatula (Sample 15c). The mass of the remaining fragmentamounted to approximately twenty times the layer scratched off; onlyslight cyanide concentrations are detectable here. The average concen-tration here must have been around 120 mg/kg. On the brick as well,the pigment has only formed in perceptible quantities on the outermostside, that which is exposed to weathering (in this regard, see the exte-rior wall of the disinfestation chamber in Stutthof concentration camp,Fig. 65).

Very important is the confirmation of the fact that the pigment ac-

tually possesses an enormous environmental resistance, since Samples14 to 15c were exposed to intensive sunshine, wind, rain, etc. for more

Fig. 68: The outside of the external wall of hydrogen cyanide delousing wing of building 5a in August 1991. Small amounts of cyanide which

diffused through the walls are discoloring them at places still today. 50 years of the most detrimental environmental influences did not change this

fact.




260

than 40 years. But how did the pigment arise in such high concentra-tions at this precise location, although the outside of the exterior wallswere not exposed to any direct fumigation? The low quantities of cya-nide which diffused through the masonry are apparently sufficient toenable the formation of pigment on the outside of the wall, which wasmoist, especially during rainy weather, and its iron compounds were

certainly massively activated by environmental influences.The inside of the exterior walls of the disinfestation wing of Build-

ing 5a are almost completely blue, even dark blue (see Fig. 69, below).Interestingly, the pattern of the brick structure located below the plas-ter has made an imprint on the intensity of Iron Blue formation in theupper layer of the plaster. Such a phenomenon is similar to, e.g., thewell known condensation of excessive atmospheric humidity on coolwalls (for example, in large groups of sweating human beings, such as

at rock concerts, in discotheques, or, generally, in poorly heatedrooms), which also leads to the formation of patterns exhibiting the

Fig. 69: Picture of a room located in the northwest of the disinfestation wing of building 5a (see Figure 18). The exterior walls are located in the

background and to the right, showing intensive blue discolorations caused by iron Blue. Taking locations of samples 9 and 11 are visible. On the left in

the picture is the interior wall, erected during the conversion to a hot air

disinfestation chamber. Sample 10, with a slightly positive cyanide content,was taken from this wall.




261

underlying brick structure of such walls. Differently-baked bricks havea different tendency towards accumulation through condensation due

to their differing heat conductivity. Differing reactivity to the forma-tion of cyanides due to differing moisture contents and temperaturesmay therefore be the cause of this effect, but also differing transportcapacities for migrating cyanide salts due to differing moisture con-tents.

Underneath the first layer of wall plaster, only approximately 1mm thick, the material appears, by contrast, pale blue, just like the en-tire east wall of the wing, which is an interior wall of the original disin-

festation chamber and whose discoloration is much less intensive(samples 12 and 13).

The interior walls of the same room, which were incorporated at alater time, i.e., those belonging to the hot air disinfestation chamber (see Fig. 18), exhibit, as expected, no trace of blue.

The results of samples 9 and 11, and 20 and 22, resp., confirm thefirst impression. The topmost layer of plaster on the inside of the exte-rior walls has a very high cyanide concentration; underneath, the con-

centration decreases. The high cyanide concentration of Sample 11could not, however, be exactly reproduced. The results of the controlanalysis lies at only 54% of the first value. The slightly different ana-

Fig. 70: Picture of the door frame in disinfestation wing of building 5a. thelower, rusty hinge has developed Iron Blue under the influence of hydrogen

cyanide. Sample taking location of sample no. 18.




262

lytical procedure may be responsible for (see footnote in Table 20).

In pure Iron Blue, 1 g of cyanide contains approximately 0.82 giron. The iron analysis, assuming that the cyanide is present completelyin the form of Iron Blue, shows that, in Sample 9, approximately ¾ of all iron was converted to pigment. If one considers that not all iron can be reached by the hydrogen cyanide, then one can speak of a near-saturation of the upper layer of material with the pigment. The drop inthe concentration from the topmost layer to the lower layers is explained, for one thing, by the linear gradient which must be expected innot isolated walls (see chapter 7.3.2.3.). Furthermore, as with the blue pigmentation of the exterior of the walls, the effect of accumulation of cyanides on the surface through evaporation of water carrying solublecyanide compounds must be considered, even though this effect wascertainly smaller on inside walls than on outside walls due to lack of air exchange in these rooms after the war (high relative humidity of theair, no wind), and due to the lack of sun activity in the room equippedwith windows facing northwards only, see in Fig. 69.

Samples 12 and 13 correspond to Samples 9 and 11, taken from

the interior wall only, from the east wall, near one of the hot air chambers. The surface concentration is considerably lower than on the in-

Fig. 71: In contrast to building 5a (see Fig. 68), the disinfestation wing of building 5b was used as a hydrogen cyanide delousing chamber for a

longer period of time. Subsequently, the outside of its walls are covered with blue spots, unimpressed by 50 years of weathering here as well.




263

side of the exterior walls, there is no recognizable concentration pro-file. The reason for this may be that the dry walls allow the hydrogencyanide to diffuse more easily into the masonry, while the hydrogen

cyanide more readily reacts superficially on the moist exterior walls. Itis more probable, however, that no migration of soluble cyanide saltsto the surface took place in the interior wall due to dryness. Thesesamples are also interesting insofar as they prove that high quantitiesof cyanide compounds, highly-resistant for long periods of time, canform on warm and dry interior walls. Due to the high ground water table in Birkenau, as well as due to the lack of an effective heat insula-tion, the exterior walls must be expected to have been quite cool andmoist even when the interior was heated, particularly during the coolseasons.

The samples from the walls added during the conversion to hot air disinfestation should exhibit no cyanide residues. Accordingly, sampleno. 10 from the interior wall incorporated at a later time exhibits only avery low cyanide concentration near the detectable threshold. Sample21 was taken from the mortar between the bricks of the wall installedlater, at a depth of 1 cm to 5 cm into the masonry. There is a crack inthe masonry of the interior wall at this location. The analysis shows

minimal but hardly interpretable traces of cyanide below the detectablethreshold in this interior wall as well. This finding may indicate disin-festation of these rooms after the conversion to hot disinfestation, if theslight quantities have not in any case lost all probative value, like thecontrol analysis of the other samples have shown.

Sample 18, finally, was taken from the door frame which was onlyincorporated after the conversion to hot air disinfestation. Below thelower hinge, the wood exhibits a visibly blue pigmentation (see Fig.

70, p. 261). The pigment was able to form here due to the moisture inthe floor, in connection with the rusting iron. This is assuming that therooms were either charged with hydrogen cyanide after the conversionof the installation or that the floor of the installation continued to giveoff cyanide over longer periods of time. In the first case, the cyanidetraces in the walls added later (Samples 10 and 21) could actually beexplained by fumigation of the rooms. However, during the conversionof this wing to a hot air disinfestation facility, this gas-tight door may

have been removed from the access way to this wing and re-used here,so that the cyanide would result from earlier fumigations. The analyti-cal results should only be conditionally considered as qualitative, since




265

terial and its preparation. The hard, iron-poor interior plaster of limemortar adheres very poorly to the wall and is already falling off insome places. The contact between plaster and wall is so poor in places,

that when one knocks on the wall, one hears that there is a hollowspace beneath. Such weak contact between wall and plaster, however, prevents moisture in the wall from diffusing through to the surface plaster and carrying soluble cyanide compounds (for example, iron(II)-cyanide) with it.

Sample 19 was divided in two, since the upper layer of plaster inthis room is visibly different from the layer lying beneath: The first 4mm of plaster consists of a white, brittle, hard material (sand-poor lime plaster), while the layer underneath consists of an ochre-colored, sand-rich lime plaster. The separation was not completely successful; partsof the sand-rich mortar remain in Sample 19a. The analysis for iron,which might possibly have been even lower in the presence of complete separation, confirms the assumption that the upper layer is aniron-poor lime plaster. This explains the deficient formation of bluespots of pigment on the surface of the plaster in this room, since thereis too little iron available for the formation of pigment. Nevertheless,even the upper layer of plaster exhibits quite high cyanide values. This

shows that the layer of plaster was not applied after termination of thedisinfestation actions.

8.3.3.4. Samples 25-30: TestsFor an evaluation of the reactivity of hydrogen cyanide with build-

ing materials, a series of tests was undertaken; during the first series,only brick was fumigated with hydrogen cyanide, generated from adefined quantity of KCN+H2SO4 in a gas-tight container. Over the

course of the tests, it became apparent by means of sensitive differen-tial pressure measurements that only a part of the hydrogen cyanideadded to 16% sulfuric acid was released as gas. Hydrogen cyanide isso easily soluble, even in this acid, that only a portion of it is actuallyreleased into the gas room. The actual quantity of gas in the reactioncontainer therefore lay far below the mathematically calculated 3.7% by volume, while the pressure measurements consequently lay around2 % by volume.

On the construction of a reaction container from a glass cylinder,sealed above and below by PVC plates with gas qualities and O-rings,




266

see Fig. 72. 16% H2SO4 was placedin a crucible, KCN was added bymeans of a magnetic lever mecha-

nism with the container sealed. Themixing was performed by means of a magnetic stirrer.

The samples listed in Table 21were analyzed. The following pa-rameters were kept constant:• 11°C air and sample tempera-

ture;

• 90% relative atmospheric humid-ity;• Storage of the samples for ap-

proximately five weeks under these conditions prior to initia-tion of the tests;

• Sealing of the samples on allsides, except for one frontal sur-face, with paraffin 52/54 (thusfumigation on one side only)

• Fumigation with 2% by volumehydrogen cyanide;

• 24.75 hours fumigation time;• Storage of the samples after fu-

migation at room temperatureand low atmospheric humidityfor 71 days.

Exceptions from these condi-tions are listed in the right columnof Table 21 (p. 267). Followingfumigation, the topmost layers of the sealed surfaces of samples 27 to 30 were removed, and hence thesealing layer of paraffin. The additionally moistened samples 27 and30 made themselves perceptible by an intense odor of hydrogen cya-nide during storage at room temperature, in contrast to samples 28 and

29 which were only moist by nature. The odor of hydrogen cyanidedisappeared suddenly upon additional moistening. In the case of the

Fig. 72: Construction drawing of the experimental container for

the fumigation of material samples with hydrogen cyanide.

1: Glass cylinder 2: O-sealing ring 3: PVC lid and floor plate4: Gas outlet and pressure

gauge5: Gas ventilation outlet 6: Magnet mixer motor 7: Porcelain dish with 16 Vol.%

H 2 SO4 and magnet mixer

8: Spoon with KCN fixed axle,

capable of tipping over mag-net from exterior

9: Sample material (here brick)10: Bolts




267

cement mortar sample, the odor was no longer perceptible after aweek, while in the case of the lime mortar sample, it was no longer perceptible after two weeks. Storage of the samples for more than twomonths at room temperature therefore perceptibly reduced the hydro-

gen cyanide content, while the drying of the samples strongly hinderedthe conversion to iron cyanide.The analytical results relating to the brick samples (Table 19, p.

254, Sample no. 25 and 26) are surprising for their values, which appear paradoxical: the fumigated sample, in contrast to the unfumigatedsample, exhibited no traces of cyanide. The value of the unfumigatedsample could be exactly reproduced (Table 20). Further analyses of thefumigated brick likewise resulted in no demonstrable cyanide concen-trations. These findings prove that cyanide values up to 10 mg per kghave only very limited probative value, since these can be attributed totraces which occur everywhere.510

The interpretation of the analytical results of samples 27 to 30 re-sulted in the following data:• In total, 30 mg of cyanide were found in the samples during the

analysis. Since 300 mg cyanide were used during this test, 10% of

510

It is also conceivable that the unfumigated samples were contaminated during preparation for analysis, perhaps through an improperly cleaned ball mill, in which samples with a high cya-nide content had previously been crushed. The reason for the good reproducibility may be thatthere is hardly any carbonate in brick, since it acts as a disturbance ion.

Table 21: Test sample preparation and fumigation

Nr. Material Conditions

25/26 Brick from demolished building fromBavaria; only sample 26 was fumi-

gated!

16 h fumigation with 0.3 Vol.%,Storage after fumigation for 120

days at room temperature. Nosealing with paraffin

27 Cement mortar: 1 part sand, 1 part Portland cement,½ part lime. Sample measurements: 55×60×20 mm,

100 g (ca. 1.5 g/cm3)

addition of 1 gwater

28 Cement mortar: 1 part sand, 1 part Portland cement,½ part chalk. Sample measurements: 55×60×20 mm,

108 g (approx.. 1.6 g/cm3)

29 Lime mortar: 2 ½ parts sand, 1 part lime. Sample

measurements: 55×60×20 mm, 94 g (ca. 1.4 g/cm3

)30 Lime mortar: 2 ½ parts sand, 1 part lime. Sample

measurements: 52×58×20 mm, 96 g

(ca. 1.6 g/cm3)

addition of 2 gwater




268

this quantity was found durably bound to the samples.• The cement mortar samples, in contrast to the lime mortar samples,

exhibit a higher cyanide concentration by a factor of two. The higher

iron content of the cement mortar samples may be the reason for this, since the cyanide content increases proportionally to the ironcontent (see the last column of Table 19). In addition, hydrogencyanide adsorption was certainly favored by the higher inner surfacearea of the cement mortar as compared to lime mortar.

• The increased hydrogen cyanide absorption caused by the additionof moisture was only slightly perceptible in the analytical results,since the samples were all very moist anyway, and because the ma-

terial dried out during the final storage phase and therefore the hy-drogen cyanide was only able to bind partially.• Blue pigmentation of the samples was not to be expected, since even

if all the bound cyanide were present in the form of Iron Blue, only0.005-0.01% of the total material would consist of the blue pigment,which would cause hardly any perceptible coloration to the nakedeye. An accumulation of cyanides on the surface of the sample, fi-nally, could not occur due to the absence of water in diffusion. Inaddition, the dry storage of the samples probably blocked the con-version process.

8.3.4. John C. BallAll samples taken from alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ are

around or well under the detection threshold and must therefore beconsidered zero. Ball’s samples from the delousing wings of buildings5a and 5b do represent a fairly good average of my own and confirm

my results.Table 22: Cyanide concentrations in the masonry of ‘gas

chambers’/disinfestation chambers according to John C. Ball511 No. Location c(CN

–) [mg/kg]

12

Delousing Room B1b BW 5b, inside and outsideDelousing Room B1b BW 5a, inside and outside

3,170.02,780.0

345

6

Crematorium II, morgue 1 ('gas chamber')Crematorium III, morgue 1 ('gas chamber')White Farm House, remnants of foundation

Crematorium V, remnants of foundation wall

0.41.20.07

0.1

511 John Clive Ball, The Ball Report , Ball Resource Services Ltd., Delta, BC, Canada, 1993.




269

8.4. Discussion of the Analysis Results

8.4.1. Blue Wall Paint?

The hypothesis expressed by J. Bailer,52,54 that blue paint could beresponsible for the high cyanide values in the disinfestation chambers,does not correspond to the facts:

1. Iron Blue is not sold as wall paint at all, since it lacks suffi-ciently high lime fastness (see chapter 6.6.1.).

2. If this argument were correct, it would be remarkable that theSS, of all the rooms in the Third Reich, would apply blue paint only totheir disinfestation chambers where no one could admire it; and,

strangely, always the same blue. All other rooms were whitewashed.Were the SS practitioners of ‘blue magic’?3. The disinfestation chambers themselves already had a coat of

lime paint. Why would they cover this coat of lime paint with another paint which, in addition, is not even lime fast? They would thereforehave had to wait until the lime paint and plaster had set before onecould paint the walls. And then it would have been by no means certainthat the paint would not furthermore have become stained as a result of chemical reactions.

4. A coat of paint on the interior of the room would not explain the patchy pattern of the blue stains on the interior of the exterior walls of the disinfestation wing of Building 5a.

5. Neither would a coat of paint on the interior of the room explainthe absence of blue coloration on the interior walls added to the disin-festation wing at a later time. Or are the SS supposed to have paintedonly certain walls, and then, not evenly, with paint brushes, but, per-haps, soiling the wall statistically by throwing and spattering?

6. Bailer’s argument is refuted by the fact that none of the coloredwalls shows any pattern of brush marks, and no identifiable coat of paint, since wall paint consists not only of pigment, but also of a notinconsiderable proportion of binding agents and other chemicals. The blue pigment is, however, simply one component of the lime paint and plaster.

7. Bailer’s argument furthermore fails to explain how the artisticskills of the painters could have succeeded in imitating the brick struc-

ture lying beneath the plaster. Or did they not only practice ‘bluemagic,’ but were equipped with X-ray eyes as well?




270

8. Bailer’s argument does not explain the only pale blue tint of theinterior south walls of the original disinfestation wing of Building 5a.

9. Neither does Bailer’s argument explain the high cyanide con-

centration in the superficially white, iron-poor material of the walls of the disinfestation wing of Building 5b. Or is it his opinion that theserooms were, perhaps, painted with an ‘iron white,’ a paint color thatdoes not even exist?

10. Bailer’s argument furthermore fails to explain the still higher cyanide concentration of deeper, greenish-bluish coats of material inthe walls of the disinfestation wing of Building 5b; or does he perhapsintend to argue that the SS even applied iron-blue paint to wall plaster and wall mortar where no one could ever admire it? There, it would inaddition have certainly have been decomposed into its component partsdue to the alkaline pH value of fresh mortar and would have lost itscolor at least temporarily.

11. Finally, Bailer’s argument cannot explain why even the exte-rior walls of the disinfestation rooms, exposed to weathering, have anotable cyanide content and are discolored with blue stains. Or did theSS employ the technique of statistically throwing and splashing paintabout here as well, paying particular attention to the structure of the

brick, resisting at all times the temptation to apply the coats of paintwhich are so typical of ordinary painting, simply because blotchy blue-stained brick is so sexy? Or was the Iron Blue applied to the bricksupon manufacture, resisting the baking process of the brick in a magi-cal fashion known only to the blue-magic SS?

The Polish scientists, as indicated above, adopted Bailer’s argu-ment and therefore preferred simply not to prove the presence of IronBlue at all. Honni soit qui mal y pense… (a rogue who thinks evil

about it)

8.4.2. False Method of AnalysisMany people, both experts and laymen, rely good-naturedly upon

the findings of the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow,i.e., the study published in 1994 by Prof. Markiewicz and colleagues.These Polish scientists, however, tested their samples with analyticalmethods that were unable to detect stable iron cyanide compounds.

They did this because they could not imagine how such stable ironcyanide compounds could form. It is, of course, no shame to fail to




271

understand something initially. Anyone, however, who makes a claimto scientific reliability must, before making statements upon the subject, at least attempt to investigate and understand. But not so the Pol-

ish scientists. They assert their lack of understanding as a justificationfor their failure to act. Has anyone ever heard that failure to understanda phenomenon was any reason for scientists not to study it? To the Pol-ish scientists, this was obviously the case. It would only be permissibleto exclude Iron Blue from the study if it were possible to exclude, with practical certainty, that the effects of hydrogen cyanide on masonrycould result in the formation of iron cyanide, and, consequently, IronBlue, and if there were at least some indication that these rooms had been painted with Iron Blue. The Polish scientists completely ne-glected to do this. And even worse: they did not even attempt to refutemy arguments on the formation of stable iron cyanide compoundswhich I published in early 1993.512 They were familiar with this publi-cation, because they quoted it, but not, for example, in order to discussmy arguments, but simply to condemn it flatly as an example of theallegedly diabolical deeds of the ‘deniers’ and the ‘whitewashers’ of Hitler, who Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues intended to refute—sotheir own words. This should suffice to show that the Polish actions

were ideologically motivated, to a high degree. If they had been neutralscientists, they would have applied the correct and interpretablemethod of analysis and would have discussed my publications in ascholarly manner instead of worrying about Hitler’s dirty laundry.

Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues did not even attempt to findany explanation for the high iron cyanide concentration in the walls of the disinfestation chambers and their blotchy-blue surfaces.

Although they had sought out an analytical method able to pro-

duce the results desired by them, the results of their first series of testswere obviously so disturbing that they decided to suppress them andnever published them. These data only became public knowledgethrough an act of indiscretion in 1991 (see chapter 8.3.2.).513

The Polish scientists therefore rejected the undesired results of

512 E. Gauss, Vorlesungen…, op. cit. (note 43), pp. 163-170; 290-294.513 The first series of studies, undertaken by J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, and B. Trzcin-

ska, were never published by the authors of the studies. Only the revisionists have publishedtheir findings, after the article was smuggled out of the Jan Sehn Institute by unknown personsin 1991; see also note 56; for further remarks on this example of ‘political science’, see G.Rudolf, op. cit. (note 58).




272

their first series of tests and took even more samples, until they finally produced the results that fitted in with their preconception: this time, both the samples from the disinfestation chamber and the alleged ‘gaschambers’ showed cyanide residues on the same order of magnitude.57

But even Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues, during the test fu-

migations performed by them, at least confirmed that moist cementmortar (as was used in the morgues of crematoria II and III) absorbs atleast ten times more hydrogen cyanide than dry lime mortar (as used inthe disinfestation chambers), as I had assumed for my calculations inthis work.

Table 24 shows the analysis results of Prof. Markiewicz and hiscolleagues compared to those of Fred Leuchter, John C. Ball, andmine.

I will spare myself further analysis since analysis results obtainedin a methodically incorrect manner cannot be corrected even by correctinterpretation. Any attempt at interpretation is therefore a waste of time.514

Even a direct comparison with my arguments and the open expres-sion of suspected fraud could not move Prof. Markiewicz and his col-leagues to justify or correct their unscientific manner of behavior.58,59

The director of this group, Dr. Jan Markiewicz, who is not a chemist,

but rather, a “Technical Testing Specialist”, died in 1997. Both theother authors have remained silent.One can after all understand that these Polish authors made their

careers in Communist Poland, and, as Polish patriots, can under nocircumstances permit the undermining of ‘Auschwitz’ as a moral justi-fication for the Polish ethnic cleansing of the East Prussians, EastPomeranians, and Silesians after the end of World War Two, as a result

514

A word on the HCN-CO2 mixture used by the Poles for their fumigation experiments. In their view, CO2 has a negative influence on the adsorption of HCN in the masonry. Their own testresults are, however, in contradiction to this view; they are also incorrect in assuming that CO2 could have a negative influence on the absorption of HCN; see also note 349, p. 165.

Table 23: Orders of magnitude of analytical resultsof various samples, in mg CN

– /kg

Author: Markiewicz et al. Leuchter Rudolf Ball

Results from:Cyanide without

iron cyanide ———— Total cyanide ————

delousing chambers: 0-0.8 1,025 1,000-13,000 2,780-3,170

‘gas chambers’: 0-0.6 0-8 0-7 0-1.2




273

of which some three million Germans lost their lives, as well as it be-ing the greatest land robbery of modern history. Many Poles fear intheir hearts that the post-war state of Poland stands and falls with

Auschwitz. This may explain Prof. Markiewicz’s and his colleagues’scientific contortions, but it fails to be a justification for them. Even the possible circumstance that the scientists assigned to the topic were notand are not chemists and that their laboratory was perhaps notequipped up to Western standards, cannot explain this, since an analy-sis of the total cyanide concentration is not expensive in terms of labo-ratory equipment and the chemistry involved is anything but compli-cated.

The manner with which the Polish scientists approached the prob-lem, however, gives rise to serious suspicion that this was an attempt atscientific fraud, a suspicion which is also supported by the fact thatthey were unable to justify their incorrect methods of measurementexcept through their incompetence and ignorance.

The conclusions to be drawn from the above is clear: the only‘scientific’ attempt to refute Fredrick A. Leuchter’s sensational argu-ment proves, upon closer examination, to be one of the greatest scien-tific falsifications of the 20th century.

How desperate must one really be, if it is believed necessary tostoop to such methods in an attempt to defend the established versionof the Holocaust, i.e., the alleged systematic extermination of the Jewsin homicidal ‘gas chambers’?

8.4.3. The Memory HoleAt the end of chapter 6.6.5., I already referred to the bold lies of

Albert Meinecke from the German press agency dpa regarding the al-leged short life term of hydrogen cyanide in masonry. A new corny joke was recently added to this debate by Prof. James Roth from theAlpha Analytic Laboratories, Ashland, Massachusetts. I discuss thisevent here because Prof. Roth’s allegations were widely publicized bythe international media in connection with the libel case of British his-torian David Irving against Deborah E. Lipstadt.515

For his documentary movie Mr. Death on Fredrick A. Leuchter,Errol Morris also interviewed Prof. Dr. James Roth. In 1988, Roth’s

515 This claim played a role in the verdict which should not be underestimated, cf. judgmentGray, op. cit. (note 66), §13.79; cf. note 68.




274

laboratory had analyzed the masonry samples from the alleged ‘gaschambers’ taken by Leuchter in Auschwitz for their cyanide content.During the trial against Ernst Zündel in Toronto that same year, for

which the Leuchter report had been produced, Prof. Dr. Roth himself was interrogated as an expert witness. Ten years later, Errol Morrisinterviewed Roth about this event. During this interview, Prof. Rothdid all he possibly could to distance himself from the possible conse-quences of the analyses performed by his company. His interviewgained importance only due to the fact that the Dutch architectural His-torian Prof. Robert van Pelt quoted Roth in his 1999 expert report prepared for the Irving trial. In it, van Pelt wrote about Roth’s statementsin Morris’ movie:516

“Roth explained that cyanide will react on the surface of brick or plaster, penetrating the material not more than 10 microns, or 0.01 mm,or one tenth the thickness of a human hair […]. In other words, if onewants to analyze the cyanide concentration in a brick sample, one should take a representative sample of the surface, 10 microns thick, and nomore.”

It can be shown that Prof. Dr. James Roth is wrong for the follow-ing reasons:

1. It is a fact that the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Ausch-witz, Birkenau, Stutthof, and Majdanek are saturated with cyanidecompounds, and this not only superficially, but into the depth of the masonry, as I have proved by taking samples from differentdepths of the wall, compare in this regard especially my samplesno. 11, 13, 17, 19b, and 23 in Table 19. They prove that hydrogencyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of plaster and mortar.But even the other samples taken from the surface prove that Prof.

Roth’s allegation is wrong: Provided that most of the cyanide de-tectable today is present in the form of iron cyanide (Iron Blue andother cyanoferrates), as Prof. Roth assumes himself, his thesiswould mean that 10% to 75% of the iron content of these samplesare located in the upper 10 micrometer of my samples (0.010 mm),i.e., they are located in less then 1% of the entire sample mass, andthe rest of the sample would have been massively deprived of iron.How this migration of a major portion of iron to a thin surface

layer would have happened is inexplicable to me.516 Pelt Report , op. cit. (note 66), p. 307.




275

2. Furthermore, expert literature is detailed in thata. hydrogen cyanide is a extremely mobile chemical compound

with physical properties comparable to water,322

b. which can quite easily penetrate through thick, porous layerslike walls.409 3. In addition, it is generally known that cement and lime mortar are

highly porous materials, comparable for instance with sponges.517 In such materials, there does not exist something like a definedlayer of 0.01 mm beyond which hydrogen cyanide could not dif-fuse, as there can also be no reason, why water could not penetratea sponge deeper than a millimeter. Steam, for example, which be-haves physically comparable to hydrogen cyanide, can very easily penetrate walls.

4. Finally, the massive discolorations of the outside walls of the dis-infestation chambers in Birkenau and Stutthof, as shown in thisexpert report, are clearly visible and conclusive evidence for thefact how easily hydrogen cyanide and its soluble derivatives can penetrate such walls.As a professor of analytical chemistry, Prof. Roth must know this,

so one can only wonder why he spreads such outrageous nonsense.

That Prof. Roth is indeed a competent chemist can be seen from whathe said during his testimony under oath as an expert witness during theabove mentioned Zündel trial:518

“In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue[recte: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface

stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.”

517 DIN 4108, part 3 to 5, deals with diffusion of steam into building materials. The most impor-tant coefficient for building materials is the so-called coefficient of diffusion resistance; this isa dimensionless number indicating, how much longer the diffusion of steam takes to penetratea layer of certain materials compared to the time it takes to diffuse through the same layer of still air. This coefficient is valid not only for water vapor, but also for gaseous hydrogen cya-nide as well as for any other gas. In the list of 100 different building materials compiled inDIN 4108 part 4, one can find lime and cement mortar with diffusion resistances from 15 to35, in which case the resistance grows with increasing cement content, for gypsum plaster, thecoefficient is 10, for brick walls 5 to 10, for glass wool mats it is 1. That means, if a gas dif-fuses through a layer of still air with a speed of 1 cm per second, it does take 15 to 35 seconds

to diffuse through a 1 cm thick layer of lime or cement mortar and 5 to 10 seconds to diffuse just as deep into a brick wall. (I am grateful to Mr. C.H. Christmann for this reference.) In thisregard, compare also the analysis about the porosity of masonry, graph 7, p. 183.

518 B. Kulaszka (ed.), op. cit. (note 25), p. 363 (protocol p. 33-9291).




276

Prof. Roth might have felt obligated to attack Leuchter in order toavoid becoming himself a target of certain lobby groups who alreadymanaged to destroy Leuchter’s career. That would explain why the

truth temporarily dropped into a hole in Prof. Roth’s memory while being interview by Errol Morris. It is also revealing that Prof. Rothmentioned during this interview, if he had known where Leuchter’ssamples originated from, his analytical results would have been differ-ent. Does that mean that Prof. Roth manipulates his result according towhether or not he likes the origin of certain samples? Such an attitudeis exactly the reason why one should never tell an ‘independent’ labo-ratory about the origin of the samples to be analyzed, simply because‘independence’ is a very flexible term when it comes to controversialtopics. What Prof. Dr. Roth has demonstrated here is only his lack of professional honesty.

8.4.4. The Moon is Made of PizzaAnother strange story is that of Richard Green, a PhD Chemist

with quite similar educational background as I have.63-65 The laymanwould expect two experts, with similar educational background, to

come to similar conclusions in questions relating to their expertknowledge. But this is only partly the case. The reason for this is thatDr. Green ignores many facts that are either supported by documentaryevidence—like the performance of the ventilation installed in cremato-ria II and III, or the speed of executions in U.S. execution chambers— or by expert literature—like the higher tendency of cold, moist walls toadsorb HCN, and the longer lasting alkalinity of cement mortar compared to lime mortar.

However, Dr. Green makes some concessions which are importantto note:

a) He agrees that basically all witnesses attest to very short execu-tion times, indicating a rather high concentration of HCN used.

b) He also agrees “that Rudolf is correct or nearly correct regard-ing the formation of blue staining in the delousing chambers.”

What he does challenge, though, is the possibility of formation of any noticeable quantities of Iron Blue in the homicidal ‘gas chambers.’One of his flawed and deficient arguments to support his thesis is that

in his view, no noticeable amounts of cyanide could have accumulatedin the walls of the morgues (‘gas chambers’). According to Dr. Green,




277

one major factor for this is supposed to be the fact that masonry has aneutral pH value which does not allow the protolysis of hydrogen cya-nide and thus the formation of cyanide salts. But if that were true, how

come huge amounts of cyanides did accumulate in the walls of the dis-infestation chambers?My argument in this regard is that particularly cement plasters and

concretes, as used in morgues 1 of crematoria II and III, are noticeablyalkaline for many weeks, months, or even years, which I documentedthoroughly with expert literature on the chemistry of building materials(see chapter 6.7.2.). Hence, I concluded that these walls would have been very much inclined to accumulate cyanide salts and to form IronBlue, even more so than the lime plaster of the disinfestation chambers, which in turn provoked the following answer by Dr. Green:

“[In 1993] The IFRC [Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow] , onthe other hand measured the pH [of mortar samples from the alleged gaschambers] to be between 6 and 7 [i.e. neutral].”

Dr. Green obviously did not consult any literature on the chemis-try of building materials, as he quotes none. He solely relies on thefindings of the Cracow institute. In order to make the reader see how

flawed Dr. Green’s way of arguing is, let me say it in a parable:By referring to a couple of Italian expert pizza baking instructions,I showed that a pizza, when taken out of the oven, is hot or warm for quite a while (one hour). Now, Dr. Green comes along claiming that Iam wrong because a Polish friend of his has just now measured thetemperature of a pizza which was baked a week ago, and which has been lying around somewhere since. And the Polish scientists foundout that this pizza is indeed cold right now. Surprise, surprise!

Of course, samples taken from the surface of walls erected 50years ago or more are now pH neutral! Even this I have proved byshowing how the front of neutralization slowly migrates into concreteand mortar (see chapter 6.7.2.2.). But what does the pH value of samples taken 50 years after the erection of these building prove regardingtheir pH value shortly after they were built? Dr. Green’s way of argu-ing is childish to the highest degree.

When it comes to intellectual honesty, Dr. Green reveals someother very strange behavioral patterns, one of which I want to address

here.Dr. Green agrees with me that the Iron Blue found in delousing




278

chambers is the result of gassings with hydrogen cyanide. Hence hedisagrees with the opinion of Markiewicz and others that this Iron Bluehas its origin for different reasons, like residual paint. Consequently,

Dr. Green should refuse the approach of the Cracow team to excludeIron Blue from the analysis, because this would most likely exclude themajor parts of the cyanide residues formed by gassings with HCN ingeneral (not just in case of delousing chambers). Subsequently, Dr.Green should furthermore criticize Markiewicz for having chosen amethod of analysis which must lead to faulty and misleading result, asI did. Additionally and more generally, he should say that the Polishscientists neither tried to understand what they claimed not to have un-derstood, nor discussed the attempts to understand as made by others,which were known to them. No matter which results the Polish scien-tists produced and what their scientific opinion might have been: their behavior is extremely unscientific, as the most important task of a

scientist is to try to understand what has not been understood so

far, and to discuss the attempts of others to make understandable.The Polish scientists did just the opposite: they decided to ignore andexclude what they did not understand. Finally, in their article as well asin a letter to me, the Polish scientists themselves stated that the purpose

of their paper was to refute the “ Holocaust Deniers” and to preventHitler and National Socialism from being whitewashed, i.e., their purpose was not to find out the truth! Thus, by their own confession, theyused unscientific methods in order to produce desired results for the purpose of achieving certain political goals.

Let me quote Prof. A.R. Butz in this connection, who stated an-other appropriate metaphor to emphasize the degree of intellectual dis-honesty revealed by Markiewicz and his colleagues:519

“The argument [of Markiewicz et al. for excluding Iron Blue fromtheir analyses] , to the extent that it was intelligible enough to be summa-rized at all, was that they did not understand how the iron-cyanide com-

pounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don’t understand how the moon got there, so I will ignoreall effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don’t drown.”

And the amazing thing about Dr. Green is that he—and with himProf. van Pelt, who relies on Green69 —does not only defend Prof.

519 Arthur R. Butz, “ Historical Past vs. Political Present ”, JHR , 19(6) (2000), pp. 12ff. (online:www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p12_Butz.html).




279

Markiewicz’s behavior in every regard, but he attacks me for my cri-tique against the Polish scientists, while omitting all the reasons I gavefor doing so. To crown this, Dr. Green even defends the fact that Prof.

Markiewicz never even bothered to address any of my critique, eventhough addressing critiques is paramount for scientists. Dr. Green ar-gues:

“Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not responded to hisqueries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf have, that demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?”

However, since Dr. Green agrees that the Iron Blue detectable indisinfestation walls is the result of gassings with Zyklon B, he himself

has indirectly admitted that all my objections against Markiewicz’smethod of analysis are well-founded, i.e., just the opposite of “ill-

founded ”.And why does Dr. Green think I bear no credibility demanding a

discussion of any of my arguments? Not because I lack scientific quali-fications. No, he thinks I am an abomination because of my views, and because I have been subject to social persecution and political prosecu-tion, leading to the total destruction of my social existence, my reputa-

tion, and finally my freedom. Dr. Green even resorts to calling me a“liar ,” “obfuscator ,” and “hater ” because of my different well-foundedopinions.

The scheme is as follows: first, people like Dr. Green attempt todo everything to destroy my reputation by name-calling, persecution,and prosecution, and when they succeed, they claim that there is noneed to discuss anything with me anymore, since I do not have anyreputation and credibility anyway. This way they can nicely ignore anyargument refuting their flawed thesis. And they have the chutzpah tocall themselves righteous scientists and to call me a pseudo-scientificliar and obfuscator of the truth.

Dr. Green unconditionally defends the scientific frauds from theCracow institute, and both get away with it, because in the eyes of the public, both have the ‘politically correct’ ‘scientific’ opinion aboutAuschwitz. Birds of the same feather flock together.

8.4.5. Anticipated ValuesThe only case of the formation of Iron Blue through fumigation

with hydrogen cyanide, which is fairly well documented, is the case of




280

damage to a church in Lower Bavaria as cited above.22 Even today, buildings are fumigated with hydrogen cyanide, yet Iron Blue is rarelyformed. The reason for this, however, is quite obvious. Fumigation

with hydrogen cyanide is used to kill vermin, such as woodworm, mealmoths, corn beetles, or lice. However, a massive case of vermin infes-tation requiring the use of hydrogen cyanide occurs, in practice, only in buildings which have already been in use for relatively long periods of time, i.e., many years. It is therefore to be expected that the interior plaster of such buildings has long since become thoroughly carbonized.Furthermore, the rooms to be fumigated are, as a rule, heated in order to enhance the effectiveness of the hydrogen cyanide (faster evapora-tion, slower adsorption losses, stimulated metabolism of vermin).Since it is not to be expected, according to the findings presented here,that a perceptible accumulation of cyanides, let alone the formation of Iron Blue, would occur after only one fumigation in warm, dry, andchemically set wall materials, one cannot be surprised that such build-ing damage is the exception rather than the rule.

The damage to the building in Bavaria is a typical exception here,since the unheated church, notorious for its humid walls, had been plastered with cement mortar, which is known to remain alkaline for

many months, only a few weeks before. These are exactly the condi-tions which in my view were favorable to the formation of Iron Blue.With increasing setting of the cement plaster over the course of months, the pH value of the masonry in the church finally dropped, sothat the final reaction led to the formation of Iron Blue, which is stablefor long periods of time. This final reaction of the adsorbed cyanideinto Iron Blue was only completed after approximately two years. The prior stage of this reaction, the formation of considerably paler iron

cyanides, could already have been completed or well progressed prior to this.520

A comparison with the probable conditions of the disinfestationchambers and alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ of the Third Reich isquite informative (see Table 24). The following assumes that both in-stallations (tacitly assuming the existence of the homicidal ‘gas chambers’) were put into use more or less immediately after their construc-

520 Incidentally, all the plaster in the church had be to knocked off the walls and replaced, sincethere was no other way to get rid of the Iron Blue. Communication from Konrad Fischer, headarchitect during the renovation of the church at that time.




281

tion, i.e., at a time when the concrete, mortar, and plaster was still notentirely set. In addition, they were in near-constant use for one to twoyears.

That the entire plaster job on the wall of the church referred toabove turned blue even after only one fumigation is explained by theespecially (un)favorable circumstances. The alleged ‘gas chambers’ of crematoria II and III in Birkenau show a striking similarity to this case.These cool and moist cellar rooms were only completed shortly beforethey were put into service and are then said to have been exposed tohydrogen cyanide on a constant basis in contrast to the church men-tioned above, which was only fumigated once.

Finally, the interesting question of which analytical values werereally to be expected, if the reported mass gassings with Zyklon Breally occurred in the ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, must now be ex-amined.

First, consideration will be restricted to the morgues 1 of cremato-ria II and III, since sufficient data are only available for these buildingsand because it is only here that meaningful samples can be taken, sinceit is certain that the material is in its original condition.

As a comparative value, let us take two of the samples taken by

myself from the interior wall of Building 5a: Samples no. 12 and 13,with a total cyanide concentration of 2,900 and 3,000 mg/kg, respec-

Table 24: Comparison between cases of building damage, morgue anddisinfestation chamber

LOCATION

PROPERTY PLASTERING OF

CHURCH CREMATORIUM II/III

MORGUE 1DISINFESTATION

BW 5A/B Iron Content > 1 Weight.-% 1-2 Weight -% 0.5-5 Weight.-%

Type of plaster Lime + Cement Cement (+lime?) Lime

Alkalinity Medium-term high Medium-to-long-termhigh

Short-term high

Moisture Moderately high (hy-drophobic plaster, cool,

moist church)

High (unheated cellar below ground water

table, condensingsweat*)

Moderate (exterior wall)to low (interior room)

(heated room)

Time elapsed between plastering

and fumigation

A few weeks Between a few weeksand three months*

(a few weeks?)

Number of fumi-gations

1 Allegedly ≥ 400*, ineach case at least one

hour

Probably < 400, in eachcase many hours

Proof of cyanide Clear Negative Clear (0.1-1 weight-%)* = assuming the correctness of the alleged mass gassing scenarios




282

tively.The following is a list of individual properties which exert an in-

fluence upon the formation of Iron Blue.

1. Properties, which were approximately the same in both installations: – the (alleged) operating time (approximately 1 year)521 – the (alleged) frequency of use (a few hundred times),522 even if a

document quoted in chapter 5.2.3.5. states that shortly after the putting into operation of these hydrogen cyanide disinfestationchambers, a decision was made to stop using them, see. p. 70. Itmay therefore well be that the cyanide residues to be found inthese disinfestation chambers today result from considerablyfewer fumigations.

– the (necessary) application concentration.523 – both installations were (allegedly) put into operation more or less

immediately after completion.524 2. Properties that were advantageous to the formation of Iron Blue in

the disinfestation chamber: – the duration of the fumigation times led, in the disinfestation

chamber, to a concentration of cyanide in the masonry between16% and 30% of saturation; in the case of the homicidal ‘gas

chambers’, however, only to values of between 1.6% and 8%could be reached (factor 2-19).525

3. Properties which were advantageous to the formation of Iron Blue inthe homicidal ‘gas chambers’: – the morgues possessed cool, moist walls, which have a higher ten-

521 With regards to the homicidal ‘gas chambers’, the period between March 1943 and the fall of

1944 is ‘attested to’. Building 5a was completed in the fall of 1942 (TCIDK , 502-1-214; acc.

to 502-1-22-19, it was completed already by June 20, 1942), but converted to operate with hotair in the summer of 1943 (J.-C. Pressac, op. cit.. (note 67), pp. 55-58; acc. to TCIDK , 502-1-24, equipment of BW 5a and 5b with hot air disinfestation facility started on Nov. 1, 1942).

522 For the homicidal ‘gas chambers’, this follows from the alleged victim totals of several hun-dred thousand victims per chamber; for the delousing installations, this follows from themaximum number of days available in ¾ of a year (approximately 270 days).

523 See also chapters 7.1. and 7.3.1.3.524 Crematorium II was completed in February/March, after which the gassings are alleged to

have begun in mid-March or the end of March. With relation to the delousing installations, wehave no data, but one may assume that the building was used as soon as it was completed,even if it must be expected that the delousing chambers could not be used for a while, since,

for delousing, it was necessary first to install all the equipment after completion of the build-ing, i.e., undressing rooms, showers, saunas, heating, etc. The same applies, of course, to thecrematoria/morgues.

525 See also chapters 7.3.2.2.f.




283

dency, higher by a factor of 8, to adsorb hydrocyanic than thewarm, dry interior walls of the disinfestation chamber under con-sideration (factor 8).526

– Ceilings and walls of the morgue consisted of cement mortar and/or concrete, which, due to their longer-lasting alkaline proper-ties and due to their greater specific inner surface area, are able toadsorb and bind hydrogen cyanide for a longer time and morestrongly than the cement-poor mortar and plaster of the disinfesta-tion wing under consideration. Quantification in this regard is dif-ficult, but a factor in excess of two must be anticipated (factor 2).527 According to these considerations, the factors indicating that

rather more iron cyanide would have had to form in the homicidal ‘gaschambers’ than on the interior walls of the disinfestation chamber inquestion ( 8×2

2 to 19 ≈ 0.4-8) weigh more heavily. In actual fact, however,

the homicidal ‘gas chambers’ contain such low cyanide concentrationsthat they are neither capable of reproducible detection nor of adequateinterpretation, but in any case at least some 150 to 10,000 times lower than those detectable in the walls of the disinfestation chambers.

Or in plain English: When analyzing wall samples from the al-leged ‘gas chambers’ of crematoria II and III, we ought to expect re-sults which are in the same order of magnitude as the results of samples taken from the walls of the delousing chambers of BW 5a and 5b.What we do find in those ‘gas chamber’ samples, however, is practi-cally nothing.

8.4.6. Limits of the Chemical Method

The most recent development in the official school of thoughttends to modify the marginal conditions for the homicidal mass gas-sings, even when this stands in shattering contradiction to the state-ments of eyewitnesses or the technical data.

Whereas it was still the rule, until a few years ago, for the eyewit-ness testimonies to allege daily, or even continuous, gassings,528 todayit is occasionally assumed, as a result of the drastic reduction in the

526

See also chapters 6.5.1., 6.5.3., 6.7.2.f.527 See also chapters 6.5.2., 6.7.2.f.528 According, for example to the testimony of M. Buki in the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial; see H.

Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß, op. cit. (note 465), p. 96.




284

number of victims to a maximum of 630,000,458 470,000 to 550,000,459 or even 356,000 gassing victims,460 that there were considerably fewer homicidal gassings per ‘gas chamber’ than hitherto believed.

There is furthermore a tendency towards a strong reduction in thealleged quantity of hydrogen cyanide utilized as compared, for example, to the quantities alleged by the eyewitnesses.49,54,55

There is much unfounded fantasizing as to the existence of anyominous Zyklon B introduction devices, which would have permittedthe toxic gas to be released through holes in the ceiling into the chamber—holes which, unfortunately, did not and do not exist—and to beremoved again following conclusion of the gassings.529

Furthermore, the opinion is occasionally expressed that the homi-cidal ‘gas chamber’ was sprayed with a water hose after every gassing.This assertion forgets that it would have lasted many hours until the‘gas chamber’ could have been cleared of bodies (they had to be cre-mated, which is time-consuming, after all) that the hydrogen cyanidedoes not merely sit on the surface of the wall, but rather, due to its ex-tremely high diffusion capacity, penetrates deeply into the wall withina few hours, and that a water hose would be of no assistance in thisregard, quite apart from the fact that such an action would have had the

effect of causing the consequently extremely damp walls to adsorbeven more hydrogen cyanide during the next hypothetical gassing. Inaddition, the samples taken from the ceiling, which was certainly nothosed down, likewise show no reproducible cyanide concentrations.

Yet there are also physical-chemical boundary conditions whichcan influence the analytical results. It is, for example, not inconceiv-able that, for whatever reason remaining unknown until the presenttime, the masonry of the alleged ‘gas chambers’ was not, or more

slightly, inclined to the formation of Iron Blue, or that possible resi-dues were destroyed for unknown reasons.

The assumptions made in relation to the boundary conditions relat-ing to hypothetical homicidal gassings were naturally subject to par-ticular reserves, since no empirical data were available in this regard.Thus the question of how quickly the hydrogen cyanide contained inZyklon B could diffuse in hypothetical ‘gas chambers’ and how

529 Pressac (note 67) and van Pelt (note 69) are true masters in the composition of such inven-tions. The court historians either fail to notice or deliberately ingore the fact that these fairytales are not based upon documents or physical reality.




285

quickly it could have resulted in death for all the victims, cannot beanswered with absolute certainty. The assumptions made here are, of course, generally well-founded, but are not infallible.

All of the above makes prediction with certainty of the quantitiesof cyanide which one might have expected to find in the masonry of the alleged ‘gas chambers’ impossible. The anticipated cyanide valuesindicated above and the subsequently following, summarized conclu-sions are therefore only the well-founded conclusions of an expert;under no circumstances do they constitute dogmatic truth. An exten-sive series of tests, for which neither the time, nor the equipment, nor the money are available to me, would have been necessary under themost varied conditions for a better prediction of the expected values. Inview of the importance of the topic, it would perhaps have been proper,after 55 years, for some renowned institute to begin with such investi-gations at long last.

Matters are different, however, when coming to conclusions basedupon architectural and engineering questions. Because the structuralfabric of some of the buildings under discussion has remained in itsoriginal condition, and due to the extensive documentation availableabout them, we are able to arrive at concrete statements, especially re-

garding the absence of alleged Zyklon B introduction holes in cremato-ria I, II, and III.



287

9. Conclusions

Even according to the statements of pharmacist J.-C. Pressac, who,in the late 80s and early 90s, was promoted as the technical Holo-caust expert, eyewitness testimonies relating to the engineering of the installations and their capacity are, almost without exception,untenable. But even the corrections to the testimonies considered byPressac to be necessary do not go far enough to make them credible. In particular, the testimonies relating to the duration of execu-tions in the ‘gas chambers’ (morgue 1) of crematoria II and III, as

well as the ventilation times after the executions go completelyawry. This is because of the over-estimation of the evaporation rateof hydrogen cyanide from the carrier of Zyklon B, as well as the in-correct concept of the effectiveness of the ventilation of the rooms.If the eyewitness testimonies relating to the quantities of Zyklon Bused, and at least approximately relating to the rapidity of the exe-cution procedure are to be accepted, then they are incompatiblewith testimonies, sometimes of the same witnesses, that the victims’corpses were removed from the ‘gas chambers’ immediately after the executions and without gas masks and protective garments. Thisis particularly true for those alleged ‘gas chambers’ without ventila-tion installations (crematoria IV and V and farmhouses I and II),since working in poorly ventilated ‘gas chambers’ with high con-centrations of poison gas is impossible without gas masks. The ex-treme danger to the sweating workers of the Sonderkommando,who are supposed to have worked without protective garments,makes the witnesses untrustworthy. The eyewitness accounts are

therefore completely contradictory, illogical, contrary to the laws of nature, and therefore incredible. The witnesses engage in particular contortions when it comes to the cremations (amount and kind of fuel used, speed of cremation, development of flames and smoke),which furthermore fail to accord with the analyses of aerial photog-raphy.

The alleged installations for the mass murder of human beings are,in Pressac’s judgment, impractical for their purpose, but were, on

the contrary, illogically constructed in parts, so that they would nothave been suitable as instruments of mass extermination. Once one




288

considers the actual technical requirements, the impression remainsof the total inadequacy of the installations in question—which weredeficient to the point of uselessness—in gross contradiction to the

technically advanced disinfestation chambers in the immediate vi-cinity. The facts set forth here with relation to Zyklon B introduc-tion pillars in the ceilings of the ‘gas chambers’ (morgue 1) of cre-matoria I to III strengthen the suspicion of a subsequent manipula-tion almost to a certainty. These installations would have been evenless suitable than crematoria IV and V. It would have been impos-sible to introduce the gas into them.

Due to the proven, enormous environmental resistance of Iron Blue pigment, the slight cyanide traces in alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’, which are demonstrable in places, but are not reproducible,cannot be explained on the basis of remaining residues of a disinte-gration process, since even on the weathered exterior side of thedisinfestation wing large quantities of cyanide can be found eventoday. Towards the end of the operating period of the installations,therefore, the cyanide content must have been present in the sameorder of magnitude as it is today, as well as in the areas which werenever exposed to weathering. But the cyanide values of protected

areas in the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ are just as low as in places exposed to weathering. Weathering has, therefore, not actu-ally diminished these slight traces. The low cyanide values cannot be explained by fumigation of the premises for vermin, as postu-lated by Leuchter, since such fumigation would probably have leftgreater quantities of cyanide in the moist cellars of crematoria IIand III. The cyanide values of the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’lie in the same order of magnitude as the results, among others, of

the samples taken by myself from parts of other buildings (hot air disinfestation Building 5a, inmates barracks, the washroom of cre-matorium I). These values, however, lie so near the detectablethreshold that no clear significance can be attributed to them, mostimportantly due to their lack of reproducibility. From the above,one can safely conclude that no cyanide residues capable of interpretation can be found in the walls of the alleged homicidal ‘gaschambers’.

It was further possible to show that, under the conditions of themass gassings as reported by eyewitnesses in the alleged ‘gaschambers’ of crematorium II to V, cyanide residues would have



9. C ONCLUSIONS

289

been found in similar quantities, coloring the walls blue, as they can be found in the disinfestation wings of building 5a/b. Since no sig-nificant quantities of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal

‘gas chamber’, one must conclude that these installations were exposed to similar conditions as the above mentioned other installa-tions (hot air disinfestation, inmate barracks, washroom of cremato-rium I), i.e., that they most likely were never exposed to any hydro-gen cyanide.

Final Conclusions

A. On chemistryA: The investigation of the formation and stability of cyanide

traces in masonry of the indicated structures as well as interpretation of the analytic results of samples of building material from these struc-tures in Auschwitz show:

1. Cyanide reacting in masonry to produce Iron Blue is stable over periods of many centuries. It disintegrates on the same time scaleas the masonry itself. Therefore, traces of cyanide should be de-

tectable today in almost undiminished concentrations, regardlessof the effects of weather. The outer walls of the delousing chambers BW 5a/b in Birkenau, which are deep blue and contain highconcentrations of cyanide, are evidence of this.

2. Under the physically possible conditions of the mass-gassing of humans with hydrogen cyanide, traces of cyanide must be foundin the same range of concentration in the rooms in question as theyare found in the disinfestation structures, and the resulting blue

discoloration of the walls should likewise be present.3. In the walls of the supposed ‘gas chambers’ the concentrations of cyanide remnants are no higher than in any other building taken atrandom.

Conclusion to A:On physical-chemical grounds, the mass gassings with hydro-

gen cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed ‘gas chambers’ of Ausch-

witz claimed by witnesses did not take place.




290

B: On building technologyThe investigation of the events of alleged mass gassings in the in-

dicated rooms claimed by witnesses, from a technical and practicalstandpoint, including physical-chemical analysis, showed:

1. The extensive documentation on the Auschwitz camp does notcontain a single reference to execution ‘gas chambers’; rather it re-futes such suspicions.

2. The supposed main gas chambers of Auschwitz, the morgue hallof the crematorium in the main camp and the morgue cellars I(‘gas chambers’) of crematories II and III, did not have any meansfor the introduction of poison gas mixtures. Holes in the roofs

visible today were made after the war, and all other cracks are theresult of the building’s destruction at the end of the war.

3. The release of lethal quantities of hydrogen cyanide from the Zyk-lon B carrier requires many multiples of the time asserted; the ac-tual duration runs to several hours.

4. To provide the necessary ventilation for the supposed ‘gas chambers’ of crematories II and III would have taken many hours, con-trary to all witness testimony.

5. It would have been impossible to provide an effective ventilationof the supposed ‘gas chambers’ of crematories IV or V or of farm-houses I and II. The corpses could not have been removed fromthe rooms and carried away by the Sonderkommando without pro-tective garments and the use of gas masks with special filters.

Conclusion to B:The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses

during their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publica-

tions, in any building of Auschwitz whatever, are inconsistent with

documentary evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific

law.

Germar Rudolf, Certified Chemist, in exile, on September 13,2002.



9. C ONCLUSIONS

291

DECLARATION

The author of this report can refer only to the existing eyewitnesstestimonies and documents, which alone are the basis for the wide-

spread historical viewpoint in the matters dealt with here.If the conviction should nevertheless become prevalent that theeyewitnesses erred in their corresponding testimonies, then an expertcan only confirm that there is no longer any basis upon which to drawup an expert opinion, and, in the opinion of this author, there will nolonger be any basis upon which court judgments, a method of histori-ography established by criminal law, or criminal prosecution of certainstatements could be based.



293

10. Acknowledgements

Not everybody who was directly or indirectly involved in creatingthis expert report or who expressed their support, can be thanked here.Also on behalf of those who cannot be mentioned, I am expressing mygratitude to the following individuals and institutions for their support: to the Forschungs- und Materialprüfungsanstalt (Research and

Material Testing Agency) Baden-Württemberg, Otto Graf Institut,Department 1: Building Materials, Stuttgart, for informative dis-cussions and their permission to use their rich literature;

to the Forschungsinstitut für Pigmente und Lacke e.V. (ResearchInstitute for Pigments and Varnishes), Stuttgart, for permission touse their library;

to the research center of the VARTA Batterie AG, Kelkheim, for performing mercury penetration tests of building materials;

to the Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv (Federal Archive-Military Ar-chive) in Freiburg for their information about Soviet tank enginesduring World War two;

to the Degussa AG for sending information material on Iron Blue(trade name Vossen-Blau®);

to the Detia Freyberg GmbH and ARED GmbH for their informa-tion on Zyklon B;

to the Institut Fresenius, Taunusstein, for giving me insights intotheir working and analysis methods and for their informative dis-cussions about analytic problems;

to the Institut für Umweltanalytik (Institute for EnvironmentalAnalytics), Stuttgart, for their co-operation with the control and

experimental analyses; to retired Major General Otto Ernst Remer, whose martial public

statements were the reasons why this expert report became neces-sary in the first place;

to Mr. Karl Philipp, whose initiative on behalf of O.E. Remer andwhose logistic support enabled me to prepare this report;

to Mr. Prof. Dr. Robert Faurisson for critically reading the firstmanuscript in late 1991, and for supplying me with an abundance

of documentary material; to Dipl.-Ing. Winfried Zwerenz for offering me his rooms and




294

equipment to conduct experiments and for his sub-expert state-ments regarding ventilation and cremation techniques;

to the certified engineers Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Förster, Ing. Emil

Lachout, Dipl.-Ing. Arnulf Neumaier, Dipl.-Ing. Michael Gärtner,Dipl.-Ing. Harald Reich, Dipl.-Ing. Carl Hermann Christmann,Dipl.-Ing. R. Faßbender, and Dipl.-Ing. Konrad Fischer for their various support and research contributions;

in particular to Dipl.-Ing. Baurat h.c. Walter Lüftl for all kinds of comments and suggestions on various questions of engineering;

to Dr. Horst Leipprand and Otto Karl for their indispensable re-search on the properties of Zyklon B;

to John C. Ball for his broader investigations of Allied air photosof Auschwitz;

to Carlo Mattogno for his extremely detailed and productive cri-tique and for his excellent archival studies which he allowed me touse and quote extensively;

to Friedrich Paul Berg for his very valuable research on executionswith hydrogen cyanide in the USA;

to Werner Wegner, and Jan Markiewicz for their friendlycorrespondence in this matter;

to Dr. Myroslaw Dragan for his productive critique regarding theingestion of hydrogen cyanide by the victims and his instructivecremation experiments;

to Charles D. Provan for his fruitful, though unfortunately stillunpublished, critique regarding the Zyklon B introduction holes;

to attorneys at law Hajo Herrmann, Dr. Günther Herzogenrath-Amelung, Dr. Klaus Göbel, Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Herbert Schal-ler for their support in legal matters;

to Dr. Heinz Knödler, Linda M. Faith, Andrew Fuetterer, and Dr.Fredrick Töben for proofreading various versions of this report;

to Carlos Porter, Michael Humphrey, and James M. Damon for various contributions to get this work translated from German intoEnglish;

to the historians Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, Prof. Dr. Werner GeorgHaverbeck, Prof. Dr. Hellmuth Diwald and Prof. Dr. Emil Schlee,Prof. Dr. Robert Hepp, Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte, Dr. Walter Post, and

Dr. Joachim Hoffmann for their encouragement; to my good friends Elda and Robert H. Countess, PhD, who werethere for me when I became a refugee and needed friends, who



10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

295

helped me to build up this fine publishing house Theses & Disser-tations Press, and particularly to Bob who discussed many detailswith me and did the final proofreading (blame any typos on him

☺); to the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of

Jews in Germany), who, by their highly inappropriate intervention,encouraged my dismissal from finishing my doctoral dissertation,from the prospect of pursuing a post-doctoral degree, and from allduties of a professional career, so that I can dedicate 24 hours aday to revisionism;

to the University of Stuttgart and the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, who successfully prevented thatI waste my life in the ivory towers of science by denying me myPhD degree and dismissing me without notice;

to the District Court Stuttgart, the County Court Tübingen, theCounty Court Böblingen, the County Court Weinheim, the CountyCourt Berlin-Tiergarten, the County Court Munich, as well as the

Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (German FederalReview Office for Youth-Endangering Media) for trying to drownme in uncounted criminal prosecutions, which had as a conse-

quence that I can now follow my revisionist publishing activitiesin exile, undisturbed by the terror of the German authorities;

and finally to the German and British media for their uncountedinflammatory articles and footages against me, forcing me into in-ner emigration and giving me even more time to dedicate for revi-sionism.



297

11. Hunting Germar Rudolf

11.1. What Makes Revisionists?

Bavarian NostalgiaDuring the early 1980s, in my last three years at high school, I de-

veloped a passion for everything Bavarian: the soccer team BayernMünchen, Lederhosen, the dialect, and, of course, the Bavarian Party,the CSU,530 which exists in Bavaria only. I also became a fan of Franz-Josef Strauß, who for many decades was chairman of this party and became kind of a symbol for everything Bavarian. I surely would have joined the CSU, also because of its strong conservative views, but un-fortunately this party was open only to those residing in Bavaria, whereI never lived.

At that time, I also joined the youth organization of Germany’ssemi-conservative party CDU,531 but was active only a short time, be-

cause when my university studies took me to Bonn in 1983, I aban-doned all political commitments for the time being.

When I started to study chemistry at University of Bonn in the fallof 1983, Bonn, then capital of West Germany, was a hotbed of anti-government demonstrations mainly by leftist students. The Germanfederal government, lead by CDU and CSU, had agreed to the station-ing of Pershing middle range nuclear weapons in Germany by the US.Armed Forces and also planned a census of the German population.

Both infuriated the German left, who was strongly opposed to any for-eign military presence in Germany and to any governmental intrusioninto the privacy of German citizens.532 I, on the other hand, took the position held by the German Federal government led by CDU/CSU,

530 Christlich Soziale Union, Christian Social Union.531 Christlich Demokratische Union, Christian Democratic Union. They actually refused to be

called conservative, and rightly so, since only a minority of their members has conservativeviews, the majority having quite liberal views. The CDU has no section in Bavaria, where the

CSU plays its role, though the Bavarian CSU is more conservative than the ‘Prussian’ CDU.532 Today, the German government consists of those who demonstrated against such politics inthe 70s and 80s, and as was to be expected, they do even worse in politics: They wage war inSerbia and Afghanistan, and they are increasingly dismantling the Germans’ civil rights.




298

arguing for the census and for the stationing of U.S. nuclear weaponsto deter the Soviets.

However, my involvement was abruptly curbed when CSU chair-

man Strauß engineered a one billion Deutschmark loan to communistEast Germany, a deal that contradicted everything Strauß stood for, in particular, the principle that one should never do business with the to-talitarian powers of the East, unless some reciprocal benefit was forth-coming. The reciprocal benefit here, however, was only imaginary inthat East Germany’s communist government promised to remove the‘robot’ machine guns on the inner-German border, which automati-cally killed or maimed every German trying to pass from totalitarianEast Germany to ‘Golden’ West Germany. Subsequently, these atro-cious weapons were indeed removed, but this was accompanied by theconstruction of a second border fence further inland. As a result, theinner-German border became even more impenetrable. Hence, Strauß’deal did not lead to any humane relief for the East Germans, but in-stead stabilized East Germany’s economy, thus delaying its—as weknow today—unavoidable final collapse for a few more years. Fromtoday’s perspective, my criticism at the time was entirely justified. Butat that time, it was the opinion of a separate minority only, a minority

subject to ridicule—it was a ‘peculiar view’.

First jail experienceIn October 1983, I had joined a Catholic student fraternity,

founded in Königsberg (East Prussia) in the late 1800s, but relocated toBonn after WWII. At the end of WWII, almost the entire German population of East Prussia either fled or was murdered and expelled bythe invading Soviets who divided this old German province in two

parts, annexed the northern part and gave the southern part to Poland.In 1984, a ‘brother’ of this fraternity persuaded me to accompany himon a trip to Czechoslovakia in February of that same year. This frater-nity brother was a student of Catholic theology and had adopted thecause of the suppressed Catholic Church in the then still StalinistCzechoslovakia. Also, he had acquaintances there, and his parentswere from the Sudetenland , a once purely German border region of Czechia, from where most Sudeten-Germans had been expelled or

murdered after WWII by the Czechs. This fraternity brother of mine believed and fought for the rights both of the small Sudeten-German



11. H UNTING G ERMAR RUDOLF

299

minority still living in Czechoslovakia and for the expelled Sudeten-Germans, most of whom had resettled in Bavaria and Austria after WWII.

With the knowledge and support of the Catholic Church, we at-tempted to smuggle theological and political books, as well as a photo-copier, to a Catholic congregation in Prague. Our political literatureincluded, for example, a Czech edition of George Orwell’s 1984,which was forbidden in the then Czechoslovakian Socialist Soviet Re- public. Although the books arrived at their destination, the photocopier was discovered at the border and my fraternity brother, another persontraveling with us and myself were immediately confined to prison atPilsen in the west of Czechoslovakia. After two weeks of nervous wait-ing, without any contact to the outside world, during which I was inter-rogated twice, I was told I could leave. My fraternity brother, however,was later sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. He was forced to remainin jail for ten months until Christmas time 1984, when German ForeignMinister Hans-Dietrich Genscher intervened and managed to get himreleased early.

Justice, not brute forceFor many others, this experience might possibly have convinced

them to leave controversial topics well enough alone. For me, it wasthe opposite. Because when I find that I have been the victim of injus-tice, my reaction is to fight until amends are made.

It was at this time that I became familiar with the dark side of theCommunist dictatorship. I swore to myself in prison, once I was setfree, I would combat the evil of Communism.

During the following year and a half, I became more involved

with those who had been the victim of expulsions: firstly, because myfather had been expelled from the east German province Silesia, to-gether with millions of German compatriots (after WWII, Silesia wasannexed by Poland and is now its southwestern part); secondly, probably as a result of memories of the fraternity brother mentioned above;and thirdly, from a conviction that the expulsion and persecution of East Germans by the communist dictatorships of Czechoslovakia,Yugoslavia, Poland, and the USSR was one of the greatest crimes in

history, a crime which ought never be forgotten, trivialized or mini-mized, approved or justified. Parallels with the arguments invariably




300

made in regards to the persecution of the Jews inevitably come tomind.

First political thoughtsThe year 1985 was marked by two events:First, the so-called Engelhard533 Law was discussed and finally

enacted, according to which the offense to dispute, diminish, or justifythe crimes of the National Socialist regime, or any other tyrannical re-gime, will be prosecuted automatically, without anybody needing tofile a complaint. The original intention of those who started this dis-cussion—the leftist Social-Democrats—was to make it easier for the

legal system to prosecute ‘Holocaust deniers’, without the necessity of a complaint by some Jewish individual or organization. Certain seg-ments of Germany’s semi-conservative party—especially those lobby-ing for the German expellees—demanded that this law should also apply to anyone minimizing or justifying the crimes of other dictator-ships, for example, those who minimized or justified the criminal post-war expulsion of Germans from east Germany and eastern Europe.

In this discussion, I vigorously took sides on the wing of the con-

servatives often disparagingly referred to as the ‘steel helmet fraction’.By then, I had frequently experienced that those working and arguingon behalf of the German expellees are confronted with the argumentthat the Germans in general and the German expellees in particular have no right to insist on their claims, even if they were supported byinternational law.

After all, since Germany under Hitler had wanted war and startedwar, and since so much guilt had accumulated as a result of the ‘exter-mination’ or ‘intended extermination’ of the Jews and Slavs, any sub-

sequent crimes committed against Germans by the peoples of EasternEurope must be viewed as mere recompense. One had to take this viewfor the sake of a peaceful life. But by so doing, crimes, when commit-ted against Germans by non-Germans, are considered to constitute acounterbalance to German crimes against other nationals, and are thusaccepted as ‘fair punishment’. This is common practice, it is a matter of good conduct in Germany to see it this way. But you will be sorry,should it ever enter your mind to turn this argument around and com-

pare and counterbalance German crimes, actual or alleged, with those533 Named after the then German Secretary of Justice.




301

of other nationalities. This is, of course, verboten! In fact, continualreminders of German crimes, whether true or not, were and are stillused to suppress any memory of crimes committed against my own

people, the Germans, or to discuss justified claims resulting from theallied crimes.

No doubts about the indisputableCertainly, it would have been possible to try and dispute these

German crimes, actual or alleged, as a means of overcoming the obsta-cles of discussing the crimes committed against Germans. But thiscourse of action was not open to me, since I could neither argue nor act

against my strongly held convictions. I was a firm believer in the stan-dard historical account of the extermination of the Jews. This approachwas therefore closed to me—it did not even occur to me as a theoreti-cal possibility. The only available way was to take the position thattwo wrongs do not make a right, and no good could ever come of awrong. This applies to the National Socialist persecution of the Jews aswell as to the expulsion of the Germans.

Tackling the Zeitgeist The second significant event of 1985 was my joining a political party called Republikaner (not to be confused with the US Republi-cans). I made contact with this party through my involvement with theyouth branch of an organization of Silesian Germans. At that time,these Republikaner were relatively unknown and their members werethought of as conservative patriots, but not as a right-wing radicals. Idiscovered that this party had originated from a split with Bavaria’s

conservative party CSU. The reason for some members of the CSU toleave this party and form their own was dissatisfaction with the media-tion of the billion deutschmark loan to communist East Germany byCSU chairman Franz-Josef Strauß, as already mentioned. The party appeared to me as a kind of nation-wide CSU—minus the fear and trem- bling in the face of the Eastern bloc, and minus the marked patronage of offices and blatant corruption which was noticeable already then.

At first, I thought that this was just the party I had long been look-ing for, at least with respect to German national politics. However,

their handling of the subject of immigrants repelled me, because as aCatholic I was very sensitive to programs or ideas that appeared to be




302

motivated by hostility to foreigners.

An anti-fascist climb-down

The year 1986 was again marked by two events:First, I came to realize that the Republikaner , at least in the Bonn-

Siegburg districts, were mostly a collection of hard-core right-wingerswho had been expelled from East Germany after WWII. At the onlymembership meeting that I attended, it was obvious to me that theycould not find anything more important to talk about than the questionof whether and to what extent West Prussia was German, and whether territorial claims to it could be asserted. This complete withdrawal

from political reality accompanied by a failure to recognize that whichwas politically necessary at the time the world was debating the reun-ion of West and East Germany, contributed to my decision to leave theParty.

The most compelling reason for my decision was a recognitionthat the party included more than a few former members of the right-wing radical party NPD,534 with whom I wanted no contact. After amembership of half a year, I left the party in early or middle 1986.

The second event that I wish to discuss here took place in January1986, at a convention to celebrate the 115th anniversary of the foundingof the German Reich in 1871, organized by the student fraternity Ver-ein Deutscher Studenten (VDSt, Association of German Students), andheld in Frankfurt. It was at this convention that I first learned that theVDSt Frankfurt was a nationalistically oriented student organization.And it was after this celebration that I had a long argument with a stu-dent member of this organization who claimed to be a member of thenationalist party NPD. The subject of our argument was the extermina-

tion of the Jews. He maintained that the established description did notfit the facts, and that there were not, in reality, six million victims, butthree million at most. I was appalled by this manner of argument, andwill explain why.

Repulsive numbers jugglingFirst, there was the natural repugnance aroused by a line of argu-

ment which tended merely to diminish a few numbers, although the

534 Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, National Democratic Party of Germany.




303

issue is not really the actual numbers, but the intention behind thedeed. My belief at that time was that Hitler had planned to exterminatethe Jews, and had done whatever had been necessary to accomplish

this goal. The actual ‘how’ and ‘how many’ were of secondary impor-tance.From the student’s style of argument, it was clear that he had

strong political motives for his way of thinking. He spoke of the use of the ‘Auschwitz bludgeon’ against the political right, and in particular,against his party. His mixture of political objectives and scientific ar-gumentation made me skeptical. I could not take his arguments at facevalue, because I was unable to trust him. I silently reproached him for his political involvement, believing that he was no longer willing or able to distinguish between truth and falsehood, between the justifiedand the unjustified.

I have forgotten his exact arguments and conclusions. Perhaps I dohim an injustice, but I still retain a bitter taste of his unbending, politi-cally-motivated way of thinking. It is possible that this is merely animpression I had, because at the time, I thought of all NPD members asextremists with dishonest intentions. It is therefore possible that itwasn’t the NPD member who had a distorted view of things, but

rather, that I saw him distortedly by my own prejudices. That questionwill never be answered.

Politics prevents doubtWhat can one say today about that event? Although I had dealt

with this Holocaust ‘denier’ and was well aware of the reality of the political misuse of the ‘Auschwitz bludgeon’ against the political rightor right-wing oriented people, this did not lead to my doubting the

truth of the usual historical version of the National Socialist persecu-tion of the Jews. The reason was that I could not, and cannot, take seri-ously any position maintained for obviously political reasons.

In the years that followed, I devoted myself chiefly to my studies;in 1986, I had entered the demanding graduate phase of my studieswith subsequent preparation for the Diplom examination.535 During this period, I abandoned all political activity and withdrew from my work with German refugee organizations and with my student fraternity.

This was due not only to my academic work load, but also because I535 Regarding its difficulty, the German Diplom is almost an equivalent to an Anglo-Saxon PhD.




304

had had my fill of nonsense and no longer cared about activities whichwere partially unrealistic and mostly useless.

Turks into the ‘gas chamber’?The pressure let up in the year 1989, as I had just completed my

Diplom examinations and therefore enjoyed some free time for differ-ent intellectual pursuits. The same year was also marked by two sig-nificant events.

The first event was the elections for the Berlin Chamber of Depu-ties, during which the Republikaner gained their famous (or infamous)entry into the city’s parliament. Like most people, I was completely

surprised by this outcome, since I had lost almost all contact with this party. But, in contrast to most other people, I had some idea of whatthe Republikaner were, and were not. The horrifying media witch-huntagainst this party immediately following the electoral success infuri-ated me. Characteristic of this witch-hunt was the question posed by a journalist on election eve to Bernhard Andres, then party chairman inBerlin, as to whether the Republikaner wished to do to the Turks whatHitler had done to the Jews. That was when things turned sour. It was

clear to me in the flash of a moment’s insight that I would rejoin the Republikaner out of pure defiance and democratic solidarity, even if Iwas displeased by some things about this party. One could take or leave a few isolated party positions as one wished. As long as the partywas in compliance with the German constitution, it was entitled totreatment on the basis of equality.

Of course, nothing that has happened since then bears any resem- blance to democracy. Party meetings were regularly harassed or pro-hibited, although Germans were guaranteed the freedom of assembly

as a ‘basic right’. The print and electronic news media were instructedto report nothing but negative information about this party, a fact not inconformity with the standards of ethics and the legal duty of the pub-licly-funded news media to report the news with objectivity.

The establishment parties placed the Republikaner beyond the paleof democracy and constitutional politics. It was therefore those estab-lishment parties who had violated the constitutional right of the Repub-likaner to equal treatment, as well as to the freedoms of expression and

assembly.




305

Professional disbarment due to loyalty to the constitutionOne of my close friends, a long-time member of Germany’s semi-

conservative party CDU, had recently completed his studies in civil

administration and was assigned to the city government of a large cityin Saxony during his period of practical training. He then received or-ders from his supervisor, a CDU member, to prohibit the planned re-gional party convention of the Republikaner . Since it was his specificduty as a civil servant to respect the provisions of the German constitu-tion, he refused to obey these orders on the grounds that the Repub-likaner were a legally constituted party, the unconstitutionality or un-democratic nature of which has remained unproven. Therefore, in ac-

cordance with the principle of equal treatment for political parties, aswell as with the rights of free assembly and a respect for the duty of democratic parties to hold regular meetings of their members, their party convention could not lawfully be prohibited.

The consequence of this disobedience was that my friend was toldthat he would not be able to complete his period of practical training.To avoid forced termination during this period, my friend agreed to atermination agreement to become effective subsequent to this training.

His concomitant attempt to fight the agreement in the Labor Courtnaturally failed. In Germany, those who defend the constitution aredumped on the street, while those who continually violate the constitu-tion enjoy offices and power while the media cheer them on.

‘Reprehensible’ German unityI need to discuss another reason for my rejoining the Republikaner

in 1989. My belief that one should hold fast to the unity of the German

Fatherland has never changed. The left-wing German party SPD

536

hadabandoned the goal of reunification in the mid-70s, while the left-wingradical GRÜNE (Greens) had always supported the division of Ger-many into two independent states. The small liberal party FDP537 fol-lowed in the mid-80s in their support for two independent Germanstates, and towards the end of the 80s, even within the semi-conservative CDU calls to put off the German reunification forever became louder and louder. In this connection (I believe it was in 1987),

536 Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Socialdemocratic Party of Germany.537 Freie Demokratische Partei, Free Democratic Party.




306

I remember the commentary of Dr. Helmut Kohl, then leader of theCDU and German chancellor, on a position paper of a certain CDUMember of Parliament, Bernhard Friedmann, concerning German re-

unification, which Dr. Kohl described as “blooming nonsense”. After the political sea-change of 1983, when the semi-conservative/liberalCDU/FDP coalition replaced that of the socialist/liberal SPD/FDPgovernment of the decade before, the new government dissolved allgovernmental departments in charge of administrative preparations for a German reunification. The left wing of the CDU, under Rita Süss-muth, Heiner Geißler and Norbert Blüm, campaigned openly for dualstatehood. In the summer of 1989, the Federal Council of the CDUyouth organization Junge Union (Young Union) took the initiative torecommend the deletion of the political goal of German reunificationfrom the party program of the CDU– just a few months before the Ber-lin Wall fell and Germany actually was reunified!

Now that Germany is reunited, a devastating judgment must be passed upon all the established political parties with regards to their political competence. From the standpoint of the present, the Repub-likaner were the only party, of those involved at the time, with a cor-rect estimation of the historical and political forces, even if they were

subsequently booted out by the turncoats of reunification. I was in the party because all the other parties had abandoned, or were about toabandon in an absolutely unconstitutional manner, the principle of re-unification, a principle laid down in the preamble to the German con-stitution.

It is significant also that my membership in the Republikaner ,which ended in the summer of 1991, was later used by the DistrictCourt Stuttgart as an indicator of my political mania— in full knowl-

edge of what I have just described. Nowadays, support for the mainte-nance of constitutional political principles is deemed reprehensible, if not outright illegal. Further comments are superfluous.

Ready to go into a new era…The young people that streamed into the Republikaner party at that

time wanted to do something for German reunification, since this wasimpossible in almost any other political party. Former members of the

CDU, the SPD and the FDP joined, as well as people from right-wingsplinter parties and many people who had never been in any party at




307

all. It was a motley group resulting in an unholy chaos. But among usstudents in Frankfurt, where I completed work for my diploma thesisand later performed my compulsory military service,538 this plate of

mixed vegetables was intellectually very fruitful. In the newly founded Republikaner university organization, we had one former member of the liberal party FDP, one from the socialist party SPD, one from theconservative ecologist party ÖDP,539 three from the semi-conservativeCDU, and many who were active for the first time. During this time,we were flooded with new ideas and discussed controversial issues asnever before.

In this Frankfurt period, which ended in late 1990, I read nearly200 books, mostly during my ‘loafer-service’ in the Bundeswehr : Iread right-wing and left-wing books, books from the middle-of-the-road, and books without any political viewpoint. It was one of the besttimes I have ever experienced. It was like preparing for an intellectual break-out.

…but instead into the offsideOur interest in involvement with the Republikaner party disap-

peared due to the fact that it was extremely anti-academic, both in itsranks and leadership. We had to let ourselves be mocked and calledgreenhorns and academic egg-heads by other members, and the work of our high-school organization was torpedoed by the Republikaner leadership which led to our resignation. From 1990 onwards, the Re-

publikaner party has concerned itself mostly with internal conflicts;since every initiative for constructive work was received with mali-cious criticism, I resigned in the summer of 1991, about nine monthsafter my relocation to Stuttgart in order to start my PhD studies.

A concentration camp inmate… Now back to the question of how I became a revisionist. Certainly

in the beginning of my second involvement with the Republikaner , Iwas repeatedly confronted with the use of the ‘Auschwitz bludgeon’used against both ‘my’ party and myself. I have mentioned above thescandalous question of the journalist after the Berlin election, a ques-tion which was used continually to suggest that the Republikaner —

538 In Germany, military service is compulsory for all men physically fit to do so.539 Ökologisch Demokratische Partei, Ecological Democratic Party.




309

German attempts to come to terms with their past—originally a purelymoral impetus—had become a weapon in day-to-day political discus-sion and intrigues.

That ‘coming to terms with the past’ could lend itself to misuse for dirty schemes is obvious. From my own experience, I can think of three notable cases, where prominent German figures were driven outof office and their reputation destroyed by political and media smear campaigns. In such cases, the media and/or competing colleagues ei-ther use (allegedly) ‘brown spots’ in the CV of the attacked individu-als’ WWII history, or they distort and/or instrumentalize ‘politicallyincorrect’ statements certain individuals made in public or privateabout Germany’s WWII past.541 Whatever the CV or the statementsabout the past of the victims of these campaigns are; the treatmentwhich they receive by colleagues and the media must arouse the suspi-cion that the German past is being used today as a weapon of politicalintrigue against undesirables in one’s own political party, in other par-ties, or in general against any unwelcome professional competitor.

The question of how true the historical picture is that hides behindthe ‘coming to terms with the past’ Mohler handled only peripherallyin this early edition of his book. His new book, which I read in the fall

of 1989, goes into this question very thoroughly and thereby naturally brings up the question of the validity of historical revisionism— something which first became clear to me while reading the book.

That I got hold of this book was due not so much to its contents,which I previously knew nothing about, but more to my interest in theanalyses of a Swiss political scientist, someone writing from what Iconsidered to be a neutral position.

…and an apolitical American…This Swiss author also reported about a study on the alleged ‘gas

chambers’ at the Auschwitz concentration camp. This study, so Moh-ler, had been prepared by an American expert for execution technolo-gies, who had come to the conclusion that there had never been anygassings with poison gas in Auschwitz. One of his main argumentswas the absence of traces of the poison gas supposedly used in thewalls of those locations identified as homicidal ‘gas chambers’. Since

this was a quite intriguing argument, I decided to order a copy of this541 The names of those persons are: Hans Filbinger, Philipp Jenninger, and Werner Höfer.




310

study, for which Dr. Mohler even provided an address in his book.Thus were the factors brought together that I needed to compel me toget to the bottom of the problem: the report of an author I held to be

politically neutral of a study by an apolitical non-partisan American ona discipline in which I had recently completed my diploma examina-tion: Chemistry.

…enabled me to doubtAt that point, I was ready to put to the test my hitherto held opin-

ion on the correctness of the established Holocaust dogma, because Ihad been presented with arguments from politically neutral persons

that I could examine by means of my technical skill.In late summer 1989, I received an English copy of the so-called Leuchter Report , which I have just mentioned, and I read and trans-lated it into German immediately, but the report did not convince meentirely, because it was inexact at points and contained sloppy errors,as I described extensively in a letter to the editor published in the smallright-wing monthly newspaper Junge Freiheit in 1990. But the

Leuchter Report had embedded the thorn of doubt in my heart. I must

now explain what that meant, since therein lies the real reason for myinvolvement.

Would only morons doubt?It is generally known that none of the world’s religions reproaches

its adherents for doubting the faith. Religion teaches us that to doubt ishuman, and therefore acceptable. One who doubts is not guilty as aresult.

After reading the Leuchter Report , I began to doubt whether thehistorically accepted view of the events of the Holocaust was correct. Inevertheless felt guilty, because in western societies we are imbuedwith our mother’s milk that the history of the Holocaust is the puresttruth, and those who doubt or deny this are evil or insane: extremists, National Socialists, Jew-haters, ethnic persecutors, weak-minded, mo-rons, idiots, fruitcakes, cranks, crooks, anti-Semites, and so forth.

Yet, through a purely chemical argument, the thorn of doubt had been deeply embedded and I could only get rid of it by plucking it out

or trying to forget it. I doubted, and felt guilty for doubting; yet I knewthat it is not right to feel guilty for doubting.




311

From pole star to shooting star Religions expect their adherents to believe in certain dogmas, but

they do not demand doubters to feel guilty. At least the same must ap-

ply to science, where doubters should not be expected to feel guiltyeither. Here I was confronted with chemical-historical questions, andideally speaking, science knows no dogmas, knows no compulsion toobedience, and no punishments for those who contradict the prevalent paradigm.

I therefore asked myself, why do western societies guard theHolocaust dogma closer than any religion does its own dogmas? Thereason is certainly that western societies, and in particular German so-

ciety, regards the Holocaust as one of their moral foundations. This Ihave explained elsewhere, in the book Dissecting the Holocaust .542 TheGerman elites almost uniformly maintain that the health and wealth of the German Republic depends on the observance of current descriptionof the Holocaust. In the German Republic, we are raised with the con-viction that the Holocaust is the moral pole star of our world-view,with respect to which everything else must be oriented.

That was my own unconscious belief until I began to question the

standard historical version of the Holocaust. When these doubts sur-faced, I was confronted with the possibility that the pole star mightturn out to be only a meteor, that everything which had been held asfundamental truth may in reality be false.

MotivationsHere then are the reasons I have dedicated myself to revisionism:

1. Because of my upbringing, I felt bad merely for doubting. I knew

something was wrong with a society when it instills guilt-feelingsin its members simply because they dissent. The Holocaust is theone area, and almost the only area, where one is admonished toaccept facts blindly; not to think critically. We are taught to ques-tion practically everything else, even that which is kept in high re-gard, such as the reality of God, or sexual intimacy. We are primed to be docile subjects and kept fearful of any transgressionswith respect to the Holocaust. That angered me then and it angersme still.

542 2nd edition, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 49-53.




312

2. Because of my doubts, my entire outlook on life became unstable.I was no longer certain what was correct or incorrect, who lied andwho told the truth. The eternal conflict of good and evil was re-

vived in me. The question where the truth could be found concern-ing the Holocaust was so important, that I knew I could only re-cover my peace of mind by finding out for myself, personally,where the truth lay. I wanted to rid myself of uncertainty one wayor the other.

3. There is no scientific area in which those who hold dissident opin-ions are persecuted more mercilessly by the ‘ruling order’ thanthat of revisionism. That is probably why most people don’t wantto touch it, and most avoid it by convincing themselves that thesubject is not relevant to current problems. But for me, this draco-nian persecution is the best proof there is that this is a crucial subject, because the powers that be regard it as most important thatnobody touches this taboo. Comprehensive and critical research inthis area is therefore very important for scientific, political and so-cial reasons.543

4. The treatment of revisionism and its proponents in areas of sci-ence, journalism, politics and law is a scandal worldwide—it de-

mands redress.

Almost stopped…Up to the beginning of my PhD studies in the fall of 1990, I had

read only two books on the subject: Wilhelm Stäglich’s Der AuschwitzMythos41 and the book by Kogon and others entitled Nationalsozial-istische Massentötungen durch Giftgas.42

After reading these books I collected information on the so-called

Zündel trial in order to find out what arguments had been made there. Ihad discovered in winter 1989/1990 that Zündel, who had commis-sioned the Leuchter Report , was an admirer of Adolf Hitler. This reve-lation had the equivalent effect of a kick in the stomach, because now Ihad to deal with the possibility that the Leuchter Report was not theindependent report of an apolitical American technician, but merely theinstrument of a German-Canadian Neo-Nazi. But such considerationscould not remove the points made by Leuchter and therefore could not

543 See also my paper “Wissenschaft und ethische Verantwortung ”, in Andreas Molau (ed.), Op- position für Deutschland , Druffel-Verlag, Berg am Starnberger See 1995, pp. 260-288.




313

remove my doubts about the historical picture.In other words, I fully realized that a fact-oriented argument re-

mains a fact-oriented argument—and needs to be treated as such by the

examining scientist—even if it came from somebody who stated themfor political reasons.

…but then getting into gearsI began my own research into this area at the beginning of 1991, at

first out of pure personal curiosity regarding the question whether the pigment Iron Blue that developed in the walls of the buildings, wheregassings with hydrogen cyanide from Zyklon B allegedly had taken

place, were sufficiently stable to still be there today. After that had been proved, I concentrated on the question if, when, how, and under what circumstances this pigment could develop in walls of differentcompositions.

A revisionist had read my letter to the editor of Junge Freiheit in1990, mentioned above, and after a phone conversation, he sent me alist of addresses of persons and organizations—almost all of them un-known to me.

After I had sent out my first research results in spring 1991 to thislist, I was contacted by one person on that list, a friend of ret. Major General Otto Ernst Remer, a retired Wehrmacht officer. At that time,Remer was engaged in publishing political pamphlets, some of whichmade quite blunt revisionist statements, which had led to severalcriminal prosecutions against him. Because of this, his friend and theDüsseldorf lawyer Hajo Herrmann, a well-known former Luftwaffefighter pilot who was now Remer’s defense attorney, were looking for an expert to support Remer’s revisionist claims.

At that time, it even appeared to be possible for me to work jointlywith the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary His-tory), an official German left-wing historical institute, whose addresswas on that list as well. However, they never responded to my letters,apparently because they were not interested in the technical-scientificside of the problem.

In summer 1991, I decided to leave the Republikaner party. I havealready given the reasons for my decision. An additional and decisive

motivation was that I did not want my involvement with revisionism to be interpreted politically because of my membership of a party or that




314

my scientific activity in this controversial area would conflict with the political goals or principles of any party.

Sheer horror…I should mention another reason that may be helpful toward un-

derstanding my involvement. Until my first trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau, I had had no exact idea of the condition of the camp’s for-mer crematoria, in which the alleged ‘gas chambers’ were located, so Ihad no idea whether it would actually be useful to undertake technicalor chemical research. Before my first trip, I had thoroughly preparedmyself as to what I might expect with respect to the material remains

at, for example, ‘gas chambers’, if the generally accepted reports of themass gassings in Birkenau were correct. It was clear to me, for example, if one was to believe the eye-witnesses, that the roofs of themorgues of crematoria II and III should show three or four holesthrough which Zyklon B was to have been thrown into the room.

On August 16, 1991, as I stood on the roof of morgue 1 of crema-toria II at Birkenau, which was usually designated as the ‘gas chamber’where the most mass-murders of the Third Reich were said to have

taken place, a roof which was in various stages of collapse and yet stillheld together and partially rested on supporting columns; a roof inwhich I could find neither breath nor trace of these holes, so that Iasked myself whether I lived in a world of madmen. I found myself horribly duped by a judiciary which had never thought it necessary tomake any special technical examinations of the alleged crime scene. Ihad been lied to by all the politicians of the world who to date hadfailed to assemble even the most minuscule investigation commission.I had been deceived by the innumerable ‘Holocaust historians’ who to

date had not deemed it necessary to make any investigation of thecamps of Auschwitz or elsewhere, examinations which paleontologistsand historians of antiquity have undertaken on the sites of ruins andother remains of ancient settlements. And I felt betrayed by the naturalscientists and engineers world-over who swallowed any and everystory whatsoever from the ‘eye-witnesses’ without so much as a mur-mur that the material remains, the supposed crime scenes, and the eye-witness testimony itself should be subjected to some rudimentary scru-

tiny.




315

…leads to the collapse of a world-viewOn this 16th of August, 1991, my world-view collapsed and I

swore to do whatever necessary to advance clarification to this com-

plex of questions. I will only abandon my position when my doubts areconfirmed or rejected through convincing scientific arguments in a fair scientific discourse. Use of force will never change this position. Onthe contrary: it fortifies my conviction that I am right, because only hewho lacks arguments must use force. And since I have been chased allover the world ever since by all sorts of government with brute force, Inow know that I must be right.

The Eros of CognitionIn time, a further motivation was added to those mentioned above,

namely what I call the ‘Eros of Cognition.’ Whoever calls himself ascientist and has not experienced this, is not, in my opinion, a real sci-entist. The excitement of taking part in decisive scientific research anddiscoveries, to push things forward which one knows are new and evenrevolutionary, the consciousness of standing at the forefront and help-ing direct ‘whither the ship of discovery goest’– those are things that

one must know first-hand, in order to understand what is ‘Eros of cog-nition’.




316

11.2. The Naiveté of a Young Revisionist

A Fleeting AcquaintanceIn February 1991, I attended a seminar in Bad Kissingen put on by

a Sudeten-German youth organization—I was not a member but had been invited. Toward the end of the seminar, I got to know another participant of about my age. He suggested that before we departed we pay a visit to Wehrmacht Generalmajor Otto Ernst Remer, who lived inthat town.

Remer, I was told, was the person who had suppressed the Putschof July 20, 1944, against Hitler, and I was told he held fast to his viewsof that time. Our intended visit would be a little bit like a visit to a mu-seum containing a living political fossil. I was curious, so I agreed andoff we went.

To a young man from a bourgeois home who had been fed asteady diet of anti-fascism, the living room of General and Frau Remer was creepy—Hitler busts, military decorations and all kinds of propa-

ganda hand-outs caused a shiver to run down my back. We were givena tour of the house by Frau Remer and then treated to a showing of avideo-film that portrayed the events of July 20, 1944, from Remer’sviewpoint. Thus ‘enlightened’, after an hour we left for home.544

Freedom to WitnessIn summer 1991, when I was requested by Remer’s attorney to

prepare an expert opinion on the ‘gas chambers’ of Auschwitz for a

544 Moreover, the Remer couple could remember as little from this chance meeting as from thetwo subsequent occasions on which I met them, when I appeared as an unknown, unimportant

person among a crowd. (Summer 1991: On the return from my first Auschwitz trip, I accompanied Karl Philipp on a brief visit during a reception on Remer’s 80th birthday. Philipp wasRemer’s friend who had initially contacted me, who had driven me to Auschwitz and helpedme there, and who later helped me with all kinds of technical and infrastructural/logisticalsupport. Autumn 1992: Dinner of the defense team during the trial against Remer, after thecourt had refused to accept me as an expert witness.) The Remers came to know me person-ally only in January 1995, when the Stuttgart District Court went to Spain to interrogate the

Remer couple as part of the trial against me on account of the commentary that Remer hadadded to the report without asking me. Even then in Spain they needed to ask who I was. Theygot to know me fairly well only after I had fled to Spain in early 1996, where I resided for four months some 50 miles west of Remer’s residence in exile.




317

criminal trial against his client, I well knew the client for whom Iwould be acting. It was clear to me that there was a danger thatRemer’s political opinions and activities could rub off on ‘his expert

witness’, if the witness came to a ‘politically incorrect’ conclusion.Why I nevertheless decided to proceed is as follows.In a state under the rule of law, a witness, including an expert wit-

ness, can not be punished for what he says before the court or for whathe presents in writing to the court, in good conscience and to his bestunderstanding.

Also, in civil law an expert witness is only liable if it can be proven that he violated the rules and accepted practices of his profes-sion in producing his report and in so doing caused someone bodily or mental harm.

Therefore, when an expert witness through painstaking effortevaluates all available sources and interprets them in a technicallysound manner, in good conscience and to his best understanding, theneven if the conclusions of the expert report were wrong he could not bemade liable for any gross negligence.

Consequently, he could defend himself at law against any civildisadvantages that resulted from the presentation of a possibly politi-

cally incorrect expert report because a witness—here an expert wit-ness—may not be made to suffer for having testified in good con-science and to his best understanding.

Though I could see there were storms threatening to come myway, I looked on them placidly since I believed that having the law onmy side gave me the upper hand.

May one publish expert opinions?

It was intended from the beginning that the expert report arisingfrom this request of Remer’s attorney would be published. It is unusualto publish expert reports from judicial proceedings, but it does happenwhen the subject is of public interest. Expert reports drawn up for sev-eral trials against supposed National Socialist war criminals, for example, were later made available to a wide public for educational purposes. The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial is a prime example of this. Theexpert reports produced during this trial by scientists at the Institut für

Zeitgeschichte were later published as a collection.545

545 H. Buchheim et.al., Anatomie des SS-Staates, Walter, Freiburg 1964.




318

My report was ready for publication in spring 1992. The originaldocument prepared for the court was enlarged by numerous substantialadditions and the layout was improved. In summer 1992, the German

publishing houses Ullstein-Langen Müller and von Hase & Köhler showed active interest in the project. Dr. Fleißner, head of the Ullstein-Langen Müller publishers, quickly got cold feet due to the controver-sial nature of the theme, despite initial agreement, but von Hase &Köhler wasted no time presenting me with a signed contract. The prob-lem with this contract was that it did not contain any specification as towhen the book should appear. This meant publication could have been put off indefinitely while my hands were tied by my contractual agree-ment. When I pressed them to fix this they lost interest.

Waiting for the Doctor Social and legal repression was a hint that the theme was a hot

one, even when it was handled in a dry, scientific manner. On the ad-vice of various people, I decided to postpone the publication of thedocument by a politically right-leaning publisher until after I had re-ceived my PhD degree.

In the European right-wing scene, the appearance of my reportwas awaited with increasing impatience throughout 1992; it was expected that my report would contribute decisively to a breakthrough of historical revisionism.

Various people began to prepare openly for the coming publica-tion. I regarded these activities with mixed feelings and often needed to point out that my doctorate would not be properly completed untilmany months hence.

At the beginning of 1992, I reckoned that I could be in possession

of the much-desired degree in the fall. Because of the workload of mydoctoral supervisor Prof. von Schnering, however, I extended this pe-riod several times. I ended waiting five more months to February,1993, until Prof. von Schnering began to proofread my dissertation.

Various Distributions ActivitiesI came into conflict with German-Canadian revisionist Ernst

Zündel in this time, because in summer 1992, without my knowledge,

he gave out copies of the report as prepared for the court in February,1992. In November, again without my knowledge, he went so far as to




319

translate this outdated version of my report into English. Later he let it be known that he would like to be reimbursed for his translation coststo the amount of $10,000.

I had a more pleasant experience with an attorney in Austria, Dr.Herbert Schaller. In February, 1993, he asked me if he could have 100copies of the report to distribute discreetly in Austrian high society. Upto that point, I had made a total of 50 copies of the report by photocop-ier and glued in color photos by hand, which was an enormous labor. Itold the attorney that since my doctoral supervisor had begun to work on my dissertation, I had no time to make 100 copies for him. How-ever, I agreed that he could make copies from the copy he had andcould distribute those—on the condition that he do so as discreetly as Imyself had done already without accompanying commentary andwithout public propaganda.

As far as I know, Dr. Schaller did make and distribute 100 copiesin February or March, 1993. To this day, there has been no public report of his action.

Remer Acts

As fate would have it, the Austrian attorney Dr. Schaller was alsoone of Otto Ernst Remer’s defense attorneys. Remer must have heardabout the distribution of my report in Austria. Shortly thereafter, I wasinformed by one of Remer’s friends, and without Remer’s knowledge,as I found out later, concerning Remer’s intention to do in Germanywhat his lawyer had done in Austria. According to what I was told,Remer intended to do exactly as the Austrian had done. But becauseGermany is more than ten times larger than Austria, Remer and hisfriends intended to do their distribution activity more professionally by

having my expert report printed instead of photocopied. Though Iknew this could put my PhD degree in jeopardy, I saw no reason tointervene. Naively I thought that Remer would stick to the rules theAustrian had followed, which were perhaps too natural to me to be pointed out specifically: the report must remain unaltered, no addi-tional text, no public propaganda is to be made. As we shall see, theserules were not considered natural by Remer and his friends.




320

The Bull in the China ShopIn March, 1993, with a furious publicity campaign, Remer an-

nounced as a measure of self-defense that he was going to publish and

distribute that piece of exculpatory evidence that he was not permittedto present to the court, because the Holocaust is assumed to be self-evident.546 Thereby Remer broke the first unconditional rule for the protection of my doctoral title, namely that there be no accompanying public propaganda. Thinking that this writing would only circulate inRemer’s circle of supporters, I paid little attention. When I received a phone call from a journalist of a west German radio station, informingme that some of those advertising sheets had surfaced at the University

of Cologne, the situation changed. Soon the management of the Fre-senius Institute was on the telephone asking me what was in the report—the Fresenius Institute had analyzed the masonry samples fromAuschwitz for me. They hinted that they might consider joining me intaking legal action against Remer. An hour later the Institute’s attorneywas threatening me with legal action. Remer had become a bull in thechina shop.

Between a Rock and a Rock My situation was precarious. At the request of an attorney, I had prepared an expert opinion to be used in the defense of his client. Theconclusion of the report was potentially capable of reducing the culpability of said client with respect to the criminality of some of his fac-tual assertions. I intended to publish the report a few months after completing my doctoral work anyway. Now the client took the step of publishing the report at a time that was uncomfortably early and, what

was worse and unexpected, with an unhealthy press campaign. ShouldI now take him to court after having helped him in court? Should I takehim to court for doing what I intended to do myself in a few months,though with a smaller or different press campaign?547 After all, I had

546 Chapter 244 of the German Criminal Code provides that the court may reject evidence on thegrounds of ‘common knowledge’ or complete unsuitability. This happens mostly in ‘Holo-caust’ cases, and, indeed, without examination of the submitted evidence, to determinewhether it is actually unsuitable or whether it may be able to defeat ‘common knowledge’,

which it might do if it were superior to evidence previously submitted. In trials against revi-sionists and also against supposed ‘National Socialist criminals,’ exculpatory evidence is defacto verboten, a classic indication of a show trial.

547 My hesitation in taking legal measures against Remer was later used by the court as an indica-




321

been informed in advance and did not intervene then. The only thingthat had changed were Remer’s public relation activities.

The Industrious AdditionsAs if Remer’s industrious publicity campaign were not enough, in

April 1993, as my expert report was handed out for the first time, Ilearned that a one-page foreword and a five-page appendix consistingof a description of Remer’s criminal trial had been added to my report.548 I was not the least bit interested in whether or not the addedcommentary was criminally relevant. I only glanced at the forward andtook no notice of the trial description added after the end of my report.

I was aggravated in that Remer had expanded and thus altered the textwithout authorization. Never mind what was in the commentary—itdid not have my approval and that was aggravating enough. But nowthat this report of mine had been printed, what could I do about it? Ithought that it was obvious that I could not be held responsible for something whose addition to my report I had had no knowledge of, notto mention that I had neither given my agreement to it nor had participated in its preparation. So why should I care whether the content of

Remer’s commentary was criminal? As a matter of fact, I basicallyignored Remer’s comments. So it happened that I perused Remer’scommentary for the first time at the end of 1994, fully one and threequarters of a year afterward, after my own criminal indictment becauseof that commentary.

The Hot PotatoIn any case, in early 1993, I was concerned only about my doc-

toral work. This also was due to a passage in Remer’s appendix, whichmy doctoral supervisor held under my nose shortly after he—as all professors of chemistry in Germany—had received his copy. In theabove-mentioned report on Remer’s criminal trial, I had been men-tioned in connection with the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Re-search in Stuttgart. Though I was preparing my PhD thesis in theoreti-cal crystallography at this institute, my research about the ‘gas chambers’ of Auschwitz and my subsequent activities as an expert witness

tion of my complicity with him.548 See chapter 11.4.1. for the text Remer had added. Reprinted in German in: Herbert Verbeke

(ed.), op. cit. (note 54), pp. 109-115 (online: www.vho.org/D/Kardinal/Remer.html).




322

had nothing to do with this governmental research institute. It was my private activity. However, the fact that I was referred to in Remer’sappendix as an “expert from the Max-Planck-Institute” had the conse-

quence that the German news media and scientific, legal, and politicalcircles unleashed a storm over the Max-Planck-Institute and demandedto have my head. At the insistence of the Institute, I consulted an attor-ney specializing in copyright law. He, however, made it clear to methat no ‘serious’ attorney would touch such a hot potato, both fromconviction and for the sake of his reputation. Also, it was not clear whether I had any ground of action against Remer, since the copyrighthad probably gone to him because he had ordered and paid for the report as I had admitted.549

The question of the copyright to the report has never been clearedup. The Remers always held the position that they have the copyrightto the report because they paid for it, and that they can do with it asthey please. There was a contractual agreement set to paper, but unfor-tunately I lost my copy as a result of house searches and changes of abode, and the Remers could not find their copy after their flight toSpain, so that the actual contents of the document cannot be deter-mined. I remember only that I was promised to be reimbursed for ex-

penses that I incurred through the production of the report, and that inturn I was supposed to publish my expert report, but no time limit wasgiven for that. The copyright was not discussed.

Also, the Remers have silently accepted that since June 1993,without consulting them, I have on my own determined where, when,and how my report is to appear in each of several languages—German,English, French and Dutch.

Thousands of Dollars—for NothingLeft out in the rain, as it were, in mid-April 1993, I tried to divert

Herr Remer. At the start of May, I finally succeeded in persuading himto curtail his distribution activities because of the reprisals I was ex- periencing.

Aside from any legal aspect of Remer’s commentary, I would liketo make a few observations. First, Remer’s remarks were composed ina style that would insult any average anti-fascist citizen—and that

would be about 95% of the population. One could well assume for that549 I was only paid expenses.




323

reason alone that most recipients of this version of the report wouldtoss it into the wastebasket unread.

Not only that, but Remer had done something that would cause

nearly all his recipients who possessed a spark of pride to consign the piece to the fire. In his foreword on the inside front cover, he attackedour leading politicians, media people, and jurists with the words,“These Liars need to be driven from their spoils fortresses”.

At the same time, Remer sent this version of my report to exactlythese leading politicians, media people, and jurists, and apparently be-lieved he could achieve some success thereby. It is certain that to senda piece of writing to someone in which he is criticized and threatenedis a useless exercise. Remer’s defense action must have cost him thou-sands of Dollars—all for nothing.

In the Talons of JusticeAfter I had stopped Remer’s defense action, the legal process ran

its course. It was my thinking that no one could touch me for some-thing I had not done. But the State’s Attorney had to investigate, sincemany of those to whom Remer had sent his copies had filed criminal

complaints against him and against me: the German Society of Chem-ists, many State Attorneys and Chief State Attorneys, Judges andPresidents of District Courts and Federal Courts, left-wing party repre-sentatives from various parliaments, professors of various disciplinesfrom universities throughout Germany, and on and on and on. Not tomention that there were continual inquiries from Tel Aviv that persisteven today.

Strangely, the State Attorneys were active only against me. Theymade inquiries about Remer, but saw no need to search his house. With

respect to Remer, they were satisfied to push papers around. With re-spect to me, over the following years they searched my house threetimes and took away everything that was not nailed down. Apparently,German justice did not consider Remer to be dangerous. The Remer problem, they probably thought, would solve itself biologically. Mycase, however, they decided, needed extra effort.

The End of Illusions

The trial, which lasted from the end of 1994 to the middle of 1995,destroyed what remained of my illusions about the rule of law in Ger-




324

many. I have described this in chapter 11.3. “ Flaws of the State Under the Rule of Law”.550 On January 19, 1996, the Federal General StateAttorney determined that I was to spend 14 months behind bars, not for

my report but for Remer’s commentary. The Federal Supreme Courtconcurred with this sentence in a decision on March 7, 1996 (Ref. 1StR 18/96). On Remer’s commentary, the District Court of Stuttgartstated in passing sentence (Ref. 17 KLs 83/94, S. 115):

“Although the foreword and afterward did not explicitly accuse the Jews of fabricating the descriptions of the Holocaust for political and material benefits, in the view of the court the Remer version of the Report had the purpose of suggesting this and thereby arousing hostility toward the Jews. This follows from the fact that the reader, believing the claimsof the Report to be correct and influenced by the tendentious commentsand rhetoric, would come to the conclusion that the surviving Jews as themost important witnesses of events, surviving relatives as directly af-

fected and Jewish researchers must have intentionally concocted falsereports on the Holocaust.”

According to the court, then, Remer’s remarks were not punish-able by themselves; only together with my report a reader so inclinedcould ‘read between the lines’ and would supposedly be led to hostility

toward the Jews, and that is morally indefensible because it must beclear to everyone that one ought to be ‘a friend of the Jews’.

Therefore, not only was I punished for a crime I had not commit-ted, but for one which no one had committed.

This would have made some sense, at least, if Remer had foregonehis commentary and I had been sentenced for my report and not for somebody else’s commentary, but that was not the case.

In ExileOn May 7, 1996, the criminal trial against me and others for the

publication of the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte551 (for this, seechapter 11.4.2.) began before the County Court of Tübingen. The sen-tence that could be imposed by such a court was one to four years imprisonment. Since I had already been sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment without probation, the sentence for me this time would

550 Published in German in Herbert Verbeke (ed.), op. cit. (note 54), pp. 59-63 (online:www.vho.org/D/Kardinal/Webfehler.html).

551 See the English translation Dissecting the Holocaust , op. cit. (note 22).




325

probably not be less than two years—also without probation. Also, the public prosecutor of Tübingen was answerable to the General Prosecu-tor’s Office in Stuttgart, and who knows to whom they are answerable.

From the beginning, the following dicta overshadowed the trial:“The moral foundation of this Republic is at stake.”552

“All democracies have a basis, a cornerstone. For France it is1789, for Germany it is Auschwitz.”553

In its sentence, the Tübingen County Court decided the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte should be withdrawn from circulation,effectively annihilated and that the author and publisher should be pun-ished. This, after prominent German historians had submitted to thecourt expert opinions to the effect that the book held to scientific stan-dards and that therefore the authors, editor, publisher, sellers, printer and purchasers were owed the right of freedom of science and the rightof freedom of expression (see chapter 11.4.2.).554 It did not help:

“The Non-Jew Must Burn!”

Since I was the editor of the book, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte,a warrant for my arrest was issued and I fled the country. In view of all

this I hope one may forgive and understand my reasons that I took myfamily and went into exile. A busy young father had better things to dothan breathe jail-house air.555

Hindsight is InsightToday, nine years after these events, I know that it is precisely the

serious, scientific revisionist work that the establishment considersthreatening, since one cannot fight a professionally written work with

cat-calls and jeers. Unlike shallow pamphlets, it must be taken seri-ously. Patrick Bahners stated the establishment view in the highly re-spected German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung :556

“The state protects the freedom of science. It recognizes the scien-

552 Die Zeit , Dec. 31, 1993, p. 51.553 German Federal Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in Süddeutschen Zeitung , acc. to Rheinis-

cher Merkur , April 16, 1999.554

Ref. 4 Ls 15 Js 1535/95.555 Unfortunately, my wife took my two children and left my in January 1999, initiating divorce proceedings in early 2000.

556 “Objektive Selbstzerstörung ”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , August 15, 1994, p. 21.




326

tist not by the result, but by correct form. [...] But it can be seen that theintention to agitate can be recognized not only by errors of form that

separate beer hall talk from scientific undertaking. On the contrary agi-tation that is perfect in form is the most perfidious. [...] But for those who

survived Auschwitz it can hardly be a slighting insult when an expert us-ing phony reasoning tells him there never was a mortal danger.

Also the state is mocked here. If Deckert’s [a German revisionist]‘Views about the Holocaust’ were correct, the Federal Republic was

founded on a lie. Every Presidential address, every minute of silence,every history book would be a lie. When he denies the murder of Jews, herepudiates the legitimacy of the Federal Republic.”

However, Bahners proceeds from false premises.

First, Bahners does not make clear how an intention to agitate can be recognized, if not by errors of form. It is stated in the German con-stitution that science is free without restriction. Decisions of the Ger-man Federal Constitutional Court have stated that science is defined byformal rules alone and not by content. These decisions are in agree-ment with fundamental theoretical works on the nature of scientificknowledge. If Bahners thinks differently, he is anti-constitutional, anti-scientific, and anti-human rights.

Secondly, there are no experts who assert that the survivors of Auschwitz were “never in mortal danger ”. Bahners warms up the cal-culated lie that revisionists would present Auschwitz as a vacation re-sort without danger to life or limb and generally characterize the Na-tional Socialist persecution of the Jews as harmless to the Jews. Either Bahners doesn’t know what he’s talking about—in which case heshould stay away from the keyboard—or he himself is agitating againstothers with different opinions, in which case the Frankfurter Allge-

meine Zeitung should not allow Bahners to soil its reputation.Thirdly, Bahners’ conception that the legitimacy of the FederalRepublic of Germany is based on the unconditional recognition of theestablished version of the National Socialist persecution and extermi-nation of the Jews is absurd and utterly false. If the Federal Republic of Germany were actually founded on this historical detail, it would be adire weakness, because every state that bases its existence on a versionof history enforced under pains and penalties must sooner or later come to grief.

Certainly, the formal foundations of the legitimacy of the GermanRepublic are very different—human rights, civil right, acceptance by




327

the people of the state, international recognition, political, historicaland cultural identity and continuity with preceding German states— and there is no need to accept the harsh judgment of Bahners and some

of his colleagues.

Pseudo-legal ContortionsHowever, it was recently made clear by the Ministry of Justice of

Baden-Württemberg that in future, Germany’s judicial system willadopt Bahners’ viewpoint that revisionist works of a scientific natureconstitute incitement to hatred and must therefore be burned. In its an-swer to a question relating to the seizure of scientific revisionist books

of Grabert Verlag it stated:557

“Legal intervention is not constitutionally excluded even when it is

clear that the case involves a work of science or research. Article 5, Para. 3, Cl. 1 of the Fundamental Law contains no expressed prohibitionof limits. In constitutional law it is recognized that even freedoms that are granted without expressed conditions have limits. Such limits might come from the fundamental rights of third parties or from other constitu-tionally-protected goods. In these cases there must be a comparison of the competing claims of the equally constitutionally-protected interests

with the purpose of optimizing these claims. There must be a particular examination of the case making use of the method of proportionality.(Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE) 67, 213, 228;77, 240, 253; 81, 278, 292ff.; 83, 130, 143) When these constitutional re-quirements are met, in special cases use of appropriate measures is con-

sistent with freedom of science or of research”

The assertion of the Minister of Justice that even a scientific work can be seized when the fundamental rights of others are involved is

completely false, and the decisions of the German Federal Constitu-tional Court cited here are misleading. It is true that no fundamentalright can be guaranteed unconditionally and when there is a conflictwith other fundamental rights that an optimal compromise of interestsmust be found by means of the principle of proportionality. However,this limitation of fundamental rights pertaining to the freedom of sci-ence can never extend to the determination of what theses may be stud-

557

Dr. Ulrich Goll, ref. 4104—III/185, Sept. 23, 1996; cf. IDN, “‘Appell der 500’ vor Landtag ”, DGG 44(4) (1996), pp. 9f. (online: www.vho.org/D/DGG/ IDN44_4.html); VHO, “ Zur Wis- senschaftsfreiheit in Deutschland ”, VffG 1(1) (1997), pp. 34-37 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/1997/1/ VHOWiss1.html).




328

ied and to which conclusions one may come.Only the means by which research is conducted is subject to limi-

tations, since research may not employ methods that compromise the

rights of others—such as experiments on humans or endangering theenvironment. If it is forbidden to science to formulate new theses or toattempt to refute existing theories, however controversial these at-tempts and their conclusions might be, or if it is forbidden to science touse certain arguments or to come to certain conclusions, or to publishscientific conclusions in order to subject them to indispensable publicscrutiny and scientific criticism, then one throws the fundamental rightto freedom of scientific research out the window entirely, because thecritical examination of standing theories and paradigms through seri-ous attempts to refute them, and the publication thereof, is the heart of science, or even of human knowledge in general.558

The ConsequencesThe declaration of the Ministry of Justice given above is clearly

unconstitutional and one may hope that the German Federal Constitu-tional Court will say so at some point in the case of Grundlagen zur

Zeitgeschichte. Of course, it is not likely to do so under present condi-tions, since in a similar case of Federal book-burning in the early1980s, the German Federal Constitutional Court itself made a state-ment in the sense of the Ministry of Justice’s statement above.559

Therefore one cannot avoid the conclusion that the present situa-tion in Germany is as follows:

1. With respect to the core of the Holocaust claim—gas chambers,the National Socialist’s intention to annihilate the Jews, and thecarrying out such a program—there can be only one predeter-

mined conclusion under penalty of law.2. The most important condition to the free pursuit of science would

then be suspended, that which states: Every thesis must be subjected to the strictest attempts at refutation and must be refutablein theory and in practice. Neither may any conclusion of scientificresearch be prescribed nor proscribed (cf. Article 3(3) of German

558

Cf. Karl R. Popper, Objektive Erkenntnis, Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg

4

1984.559 On Wilhelm Stäglich, op. cit. (note 41): German Federal Constitutional Court, ref., ref. 1 BvR 408f./83, reprinted in Wigbert Grabert, Geschichtsbetrachtung als Wagnis, Grabert, Tübingen1984, pp. 287ff.




329

Basic Law).3. The fundamental dignity of humans that sets us apart from animals

lies in the fact that we do not take our sensual impressions as be-

ing identical to objective reality, but that we doubt and can resolveour doubts through intellectual activity—research. This factor of human dignity is suspended in Germany in this particular field.(cf. Article 1, of German Basic Law).It remains an open question what one is to do with Article 20(4) of

the German Basic Law which states:

“All Germans have the right of resistance to anyone who attemptsto overthrow this provision if no other means avail.”




330

11.3. Flaws of a State Under the Rule of Law

IntroductionWhere politics and the Zeitgeist exert heavy pressure on justice,

one must expect that unjust judgments will be handed down on purpose. For this there is no need either for a state with a constitutionwhich is openly contrary to the rule of law or a condition similar tocivil war.1 With respect to normal prosecutions of criminals, the legal procedures of nations observing the rule of law and those not observ-

ing the rule of law are similar. Only in politically motivated prosecu-tions will it show whether or not judges follow the rule of law, that is,whether they can be forced by trial procedures not to deviate fromthem. For some time there has been a discussion as to how far thecharacter of the Federal Republic of Germany as a nation observing therule of law has been endangered by certain phenomena of the Zeitgeist .

One case in particular caused severe accusations from many sidesof the German society so that the political distortions within the Ger-

man legal system have indeed reached such a degree that even legalexperts are seriously troubled: In 1991, Günter Deckert, then leader of the German nationalistic party NPD (Nationaldemokratische ParteiDeutschlands), organized a convention where Fred. A. Leuchter, a U.S.expert for execution technologies, lectured about his technical andchemical research regarding the alleged ‘gas chambers’ of Auschwitz.Deckert translated his speech for the audience into German. He wassubsequently prosecuted for this and eventually sentenced to 12months on probation. Following a huge media-outcry and massive in-tervention of national as well as international politicians, Deckert was put on trial again—at a different court with different judges—and sen-tenced to two years without probation. His first judge Dr. Rainer Orletwas threatened to be prosecuted for violating the law—his sentencewas considered to have been too mild—but was eventually only forcedto retire.560 Deckert’s publication about this affair,561 together with

560

See G. Herzogenrath-Amelung: “Gutachten im Asylverfahren von Germar Rudolf ”, VffG, 6(2)(2002), pp. 176-190, here pp. 180-182 (online: www.vho.org/VffG/2002/2/Amelung176-190.html).

561 Günther Anntohn, Henri Roques, Der Fall Günter Deckert , DAGD/Germania Verlag, Wein-




331

other ‘thought’ crimes like writing naughty letters to Jewish represen-tatives and selling prohibited revisionist literature—were prosecuted aswell and, together with his first conviction, led to an accumulated

prison term of more than five years. Eventually, even his defense law-yer Ludwig Bock was prosecuted and sentenced for too vigorouslydefending Deckert by asking for permission to introduce revisionistevidence. This was considered criminal behavior because Bock alleg-edly indicated with this that he identifies himself with revisionistthoughts.562 In a similar case, the well-know German right-wing de-fense lawyer Jürgen Rieger was put on trial in 2000, because duringthe proceedings against one of his clients in summer 1996, he had fileda motion to introduce me as an expert witness as evidence for the factthat his client’s revisionist claims were well founded. Though JürgenRieger was initially acquitted by the Hamburg District Court,563 theGerman Federal Supreme Court subsequently overturned this verdict,demanding the sentencing and punishment of every lawyer who daresto ask for, or introduce, evidence challenging the common ‘knowl-edge’ about the Holocaust.564 Thus, it is clear that every judge, whodares to hand out lenient sentences to revisionist, at least risks anabrupt end of his career, and defense lawyers trying to defend their

clients effectively may themselves be prosecuted for that.In what follows, I shall show by my own experience which indi-

cates that the rule of law in the German state has many flaws that makeit easy for the judicial system in general and the judges in particular todeliberately make bad decisions uncorrectable, because they have theappearance of being decided according to the rule of law.

Again and again in various sorts of company I encounter the samedisbelieving astonishment as to the state of the German criminal justice

system that overcame me at the beginning of the prosecution avalanche

heim 1995 (District Court Mannheim, ref. (13) 5 Ns 67/96) online: www.vho.org/D/Deckert)562 VffG 3(2) (1999), p. 208; online: www.vho.org/VffG/1999/2/Zornig208.html. As a conse-

quence of his prosecution, Bock subsequently changed his defense strategy, and when as-signed to defend the Australian revisionist Dr. Fredrick Töben in November 1999, he re-mained completely silent in order to prevent further prosecutions, hence rendering any defenseof Dr. Töben impossible.

563 Hamburger Morgenpost , Nov. 14, 2000; see “Verteidiger Rieger siegt in Verfahren wegen‘unzulässiger Verteidigung’”, VffG 4(3&4) (2000), p. 457 (online:

www.vho.org/News/D/News3_00.html#n7)564 German Federal Supreme Court , BGH, ref. 5 StR 485/01; see German daily press from April11, 2002 (taz, Bild , Frankfurter Rundschau, Stuttgarter Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei-tung , all on page 2!).




332

against me. Despite my lack of legal qualification I believe I have beencalled upon to raise my voice on this subject, since the numerous for-mal defects of the German legal system have apparently not been dealt

with by those with the professional competence to do so.Since I am no legal expert but only one who has been self-educated on the subject through painful experience, I hope readers willexcuse my ineptness of expression. If I make frequent reference here tomy trial before the District Court of Stuttgart (ref. 17 KLs 83/94), it is because these examples serve to indicate major problems in the Ger-man system of government and its judicial system.

No Word-For-Word RecordUntil the end 70s, a record of the proceedings was kept duringGerman criminal trials, in which the statements of witnesses and re-sponses of the accused were set down. The contents of this record werenever relevant for an appeal or revision. For example, if in the record itsaid ‘The witness said A’, but in the decision the court stated ‘The wit-ness said B’, the assertion in the decision would be taken as the factand that in the record would be considered meaningless.

In the course of a change in the German criminal law at the end of the 70s, the duty to make entries in the record of the proceedings wasremoved for reasons of economy for all courts higher than the CountyCourts. What appears now in German trial records is something like‘The witness made statements on the subject’ or ‘The accused made adeclaration’. The substance of what was said cannot be found there andit can no longer be proven by documentation when the court usesstatements incorrectly.565

In other nations observing the rule of law, such as the United

States, Canada, Australia, or Austria, word-by-word transcripts of the

565 There is always the possibility that the defense can hire its own stenographer to record the proceedings and type them up later. Then there would have to be a motion to insert this recordinto the record of the proceedings. Motions of this sort are always denied because the GermanCode of Criminal Procedures does not provide any rules for such records. In order to defeatthe usual refusal of the court to accept such a motion on the grounds that the transcript is fac-tually incorrect, the motion would have to be made either before the dismissal of the witnessor immediately after the response of the accused or the defense attorney. Thereby the doubtsof the court could be allayed through requestioning of the witnesses or the accused. Although

the record of the statements can be entered into the record of the proceedings with the (denied)motion in this way, they will still be irrelevant in appeals and revision procedures. Consider-ing the expense to the accused in time and money of such an effort over the course of, say, athirty-day trial with twenty witnesses, it should be clear how impractical this scenario is.




333

proceedings are prepared.The anti-justice consequences of the present German system can

easily be imagined, and I will briefly illustrate it with three examples

from my own trial.1. The issue in this trial was whether or not I had participated inthe distribution of a version of my expert report with added commen-tary by Generalmajor O.E. Remer in April 1993. The court was inter-ested in, among other things, how Remer had come into possession of that particular version of my report which he used for producing his printed version. In the trial I had stated that Remer had probably re-ceived it from his attorney Hajo Herrmann. The court was more thaneager to nail me as a liar, so they were trying to make Hajo Herrmannconcede that he never sent a copy of this particular version to his cli-ent. Remer had reproduced the “ second version of the 3rd edition” of my report, which the court called version “ F2”.566 In the trial reportmade by an observer, the questioning of Herrmann on December 6,1994, ran somewhat as follows:

“Then the witness Hajo Herrmann, year-of-birth 1913, was ques-tioned. He confirmed that in the summer of 1991 he had assigned the

preparation of the expert report to the defendant (Germar Rudolf). Thewitness states that he had received every version of the expert report

from the defendant and had sent a copy of each to his client Remer. Later the witness stated that he did not know whether he had received another expert report in November or December 1992. When the judge inquired about it further he said that he could almost exclude this. He also did not believe that he had provided Remer with a new version of the expert re-

port during the appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. Later, Herrmann said that the first version of the 3rd edition sent in November 1992 wasthe last that he had received. When the defendant (Germar Rudolf) inter-

rogated Herrmann (which the judge at first objected to) whether the wit-ness thought that the arrangement of the chapters of the first version of the 3rd edition was correct, the witness remembered that he had re-quested a change by telephone. At that point the witness decided that hemust have received the second version of the 3rd edition that had beenchanged due to his request [this was the version called “ F2” by the court,which Remer used to produce his published version]. Herrmann could also not exclude that Remer might have obtained documentation with

566 The first edition was mailed out in some 15 copies in January 1992, the second in February1992, the first version of the third edition in November 1992, and a slightly revised version of this edition (second version) in December 1992.




334

new versions of the expert report during the appeal to the Federal Su- preme Court. He said he had submitted the expert report both during theappeal to the District Court and during the appeal to the Federal Su-

preme Court. At this moment, the Presiding Judge interjected that theexpert report was not to be found in the records of either of these pro-ceedings. Made aware of the error of his statement, the witness said that due to the voluminous material in the numerous trials in which he wasinvolved he was not able to pay such particular attention to any onedocument, hence he could not remember every single one. In the courseof time he had been involved in 12 to 15 trials in which he used Rudolf’sexpert report, in addition to all his other trials. For him, the witness, theexpert report of the accused was just one document among many othersand so he was not able to remember details.”

What can be seen from this is that the witness Herrmann was basi-cally confused and could not remember details about which version hehad sent to whom and when. But at least Herrmann rememberedclearly that he had requested changes to the expert report, so he con-cluded logically that I must have sent him copies of this rearrangedversion; after all, I had prepared this version on his request. The court,however, described the statements of the witness on page 199 as fol-lows:

“The taking of evidence has shown on the other hand that attorney Herrmann never, and in any case not during 1992 nor in the first quarter of 1993, had come into possession of draft ‘F2’ and that he did not send it to Remer. The witness Herrmann affirmed that the draft ‘F1’ was thelast version of the ‘expert report’ that had come to him, and in additionhe could not say when he came into possession of this version. In therest, he believably reported that he had had no further contact with

Remer after the trial in Schweinfurt on Oct. 22, 1992, due to the ‘expert

report’. He could not remember having sent a copy of the ‘expert report’ to Remer in December 1992.”

The difference between the two texts is obvious: The independentobserver reported that Herrmann did revise his initial statement after Imade him remember that it was Herrmann himself who made me prepare this particular version “ F2”, which leads to the logical conclusionthat he did, of course, receive at least one copy of this version he hadspecifically demanded. But the court simply ‘forgot’ about this detail.

From its own faulty reasoning, the court concluded on page 202f.:“The fact that the accused knowingly spread an untrue account of




335

how the Remer operation came about is a particularly clear indicationthat he was involved in the Remer operation.”

2. The Court was also eager to try to prove that I did tell my sister

about Remer’s commentary before Remer had even started to distrib-ute my report, which would have been possible only if I had been in-volved in the production of said commentary. The first copies of myreport mailed out by Remer arrived at their destinations briefly after Easter 1993. Did I tell my sister already before Easter about thesecomments, then this would put a ‘nail into my coffin’. According tothe above-mentioned independent observer, the sister of the accusedmade the following statement on January 24, 1995:

“The sister of the accused states that she learned from her brother during a visit shortly before Easter 1993 (April 10-12, 1993), that Remer had joined a racist and anti-Semitic commentary to the expert report,which he had obtained from his attorney, and distributed it against hiswill. In this connection there was talk [between my sister and me] of ameasure against Remer at one time. The inquiry, whether her brother de-

scribed the Remer operation as a threatening event or as a completed happening, she could not answer because she could not remember. It was

possible that the operation had already happened. Actually she had spo-

ken with her brother on this subject numerous times since there had beentelephone communications between them once a fortnight. Under intensive questioning by the court about details of content and chronology of the events at that time, the witness appeared stressed and appreciablyabashed. On inquiry of her brother she said she could no longer remem-ber exactly when she had heard what news from her brother on this sub-

ject. She could only describe her overall impression.”

The court described this witness statement as follows (p. 210):

“Moreover the sister of the accused said he had expressed to her al-ready in Easter 1993 (April 11/12, 1993) the intention to follow the Remer version with an ‘authorized’ version. The reason he had givenwas that Remer had scattered racist expressions through the ‘expert re-

port’. But in his testimony the accused says he saw the Remer version first from his doctoral supervisor on 16th April 1993 and first knew of the Remer additions at that time. The fact that he referred to Remer’s‘racist expressions’ previous to this is a further indication that the ac-cused had knowledge of the Remer operation beforehand.”

However, according to the independent observer, my sister thought “it was possible” that Remer’s mailout had already taken place




336

before Easter 1993, which is clearly incorrect—all copies of Remer’sversion were mailed to their recipients only after April 15, 1993. This proves that my sister’s memory was wrong regarding the chronology,

which is also supported by her own statements under intensive inquiry both by the judges and by me that she simply could not remember when she had heard what from me. The fact that the witness could nolonger remember the exact chronology was duly omitted by the courtfor obvious reasons. Who of us can remember, down to the exact day,what we heard from our siblings two years ago? But for the court, thiswas a major stepping stone to its verdict.

3. Another way to prove me a liar was the court’s attempt to provethat my statements regarding contacts with the Remer couple were alie. By showing that I was hiding my contacts to Remers, they soughtto prove that I was in fact involved in their plot to hide the truth fromthe court. On my contacts with O.E. Remer, the independent observer wrote the following on the trial day November 11, 1994:

“At that point he [the accused] mentioned among other things his four meetings with O. E. Remer, of which the last took place at the beginning of May 1993. At this time, he had negotiated a declaration of injunction with Remer through an intermediary. The intermediary had re-

phrased it and given it to him, the accused. Shortly thereafter, Remer had signed it in the presence of the intermediary and himself. When asked,why he had not handled the declaration of injunction himself, the ac-cused explained he had not had any contact with Remer and did not de-

sire to do so.”

For January 24, 1995, one reads there:

“Next was introduced an application form to participate at a revisionist gathering in Roding in summer 1991, organized by O. E. Remer,

which had been filled out by the accused but not sent in. The accused said he had been interested in the proceedings because of the announced participants Prof. R. Faurisson and Dr. W. Stäglich. In any case, he wasnot there, which is also proved by the fact that he had not sent in the ap-

plication form. He had not noticed at the time that Remer directed the proceedings.

The defense attorney said that he had himself participated in this gathering but could not remember that he had seen his present client there.”

But the court portrayed both happenings, which it interpreted as




337

evidence of my lack of credibility, as follows (p. 148ff.):

“For one thing he [the accused] took part in the closed revisionist proceedings called by Remer on 29.6.1991 [in Roding] , in which Remer

gave the welcoming address (p. 49). The copy of the filled out applica-tion form that was found at his house shows that. The accused has not contested this. [...]

In addition, he finally admitted to have stopped by Remer’s place in Bad Kissingen on May 2, 1993, together with Philipp in connection withthe completion of the declaration of injunction (p. 124). The accused at

first attempted to disguise this contact. In his first response during thetrial, when talking about how this declaration evolved, he said he had communicated with Remer ‘through an intermediary’ after the latter had

not responded to his written warnings. This intermediary had worked out the text of the declaration with Remer and had given it to him. As reason

for having made use of an intermediary he said he did not want to havedirect contact with Remer.

The accused attempted to deliberately misrepresent his attitude to Remer in other cases as well. The above-mentioned letter of the accused to attorney Herrmann on Dec. 20, 1993, shows this. [...] At the same timethe accused described [in this letter] the supposedly only three meetings

with Remer. [...] It is noteworthy that his letter to attorney Herrmann deliberately

describes his relation to Remer incompletely by leaving out both of theseevents [revisionist gathering in Roding and arranging publication of the brochure Die Zeit lügt!,567]. The chamber is convinced from this that it does not reflect the true relations and the actual opinion of the accused on Remer, but was written expressly for the purpose of misleading the in-vestigation process.”

Since the original of the application form to the revisionist gather-ing in Roding had been introduced as evidence during the trial and nota copy, as the court falsely claims in its written verdict, it is easy to seethat I was not present at the gathering in Roding. In a later publication,my defense lawyer confirmed the report of the independent observer and criticized the court harshly for this rather odd mistake.568 One cansee even further that the report of the independent observer is correctwith respect to my responses. If one considers that Remer was abso-

567 (The (German weekly) Time lies!), edited by O.E. Remer, Verlag Remer Heipke, Bad Kissin-gen 1992 (online: www.vho.org/D/Beitraege/Zeit.html).

568 G. Herzogenrath-Amelung, op. cit. (note 560), pp. 186f.




338

lutely not involved in arranging the publication of the brochure Die Zeit lügt!, i.e., that it did not lead to any correspondence or meetings between Remer and me (not even the Court claimed that), that it was

not me who decided to put Remer’s name and publishing house on theimprint of the brochure,569 and that in the letters and statements quoted

569 This brochure was mainly written by me (under four pen names), but made fit for publication by Karl Philipp, who made some changes to it and chose Remer as editor and publisher to pro-tect me legally (which worked). As far as I know, Remer was not involved in the actual pro-duction of the brochure, and I was never involved in its distribution. Therefore, no link ever existed between my writing the brochure—without any intention to do it for Remer—and thefact that Philipp put Remer’s name on it (probably even without Remer knowing it) after I hadfinished my writings. True, I never complained about it, but there was, realistically seen, no

other way than Philipp’s way to have this brochure published swiftly—which was necessarysince it was a reaction to a series of articles in a weekly newspaper—, and I did not intend toreveal my pen names to anybody anyway, so why bother?It should be mentioned in this context that this brochure still causes me some trouble in thatmy use of four pen names for it (Dipl.-Ing. Hans Karl Westphal, engineer; Dr. Werner Kret-schmer, barrister, Dr. Christian Konrad, historian, Dr.Dr. Rainer Scholz, chemist and pharma-cologist), all of them pretending to have a different academic degree, led to the accusation of dishonesty and attempted confidence trickery (see, e.g., www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/). The background of these pen names wasnot the attempt to impress people with phony doctorates, though I must admit that it can havethis effect. I therefore wish to set the record straight by repeating what I stated already else-where (www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html):The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title Die Zeit lügt!,

published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian pub-lished in summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no.40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This brochure is the fairest writing about the Holocaust controversythat ever appeared, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always has the means to check both points of view. Nobody else has ever done that before or since—on either side of this discussion.

Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of theauthors given—simply because these names were added after the brochure was written—nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was

done, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present.Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.In spring and summer 1992, I was called by several defense lawyers as an expert witness inseveral trials imposed on revisionists in Germany (Udo Walendy, District Court Bielefeld,February 1992; Gerd Honsik, Upper District Court Munich, March 1992; David Irving,County Court Munich, May 1992; Detscher, County Court Munich, July 1992; Max Wahl,District Court Munich, July 1992). In these trials—as in all trials against revisionists—the

judges rejected any evidence presented by the defense, including all expert witnesses. In onecase, I had to learn that a chemist (me) was rejected because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor a histo-rian, and a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor an

engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, achemist, a toxicologist, a historian and perhaps even a barrister to be accepted as an expertwitness at a German court of law. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, I decidedto mock it with a parody by inventing a person with all these features, but then Karl Philipp




339

by the Court I was always writing and speaking about actual dealingswith Remer—there was none in connection with the brochure Die Zeit lügt! —it must be asked: who lacks credibility here?

A large number of similar cases could be shown in which the courtmade observations on the statements of mine or of witnesses that differ from the trial report. Since the differing interpretation of the court werealways disadvantageous for me, the question must be raised whether we are supposed to believe that these errors were made unintentionally.

Hiding the Purpose of EvidenceIt appears possible that in German courts, the written judgment

will suddenly present evidence as the main proof of guilt which hadremained in the background during the proceedings of the trial, in thatthe court reinterprets it in a way that had not been mentioned duringthe proceedings. In this way, it is impossible for the defense to bring inevidence to refute evidence which at first appears to be harmless sinceno one can tell what evidence the court will use as proof of what fact.

When the defense attorney wants to introduce a piece of evidence,he must always provide a reason for it so that the court can decide on

the request. On the other hand, this rule does not seem to apply to thecourt itself.Here is one example of that. The court interpreted certain publica-

tion details of the original version of the Rudolf expert report used byRemer in his version as well as of the version without comments pub-lished by me a few months later as proof that Remer’s distribution ac-tivities of his version and the subsequent publication of my authorizedversion were one single operation planned in advance. As one of themain proofs for this the court pointed to the fact that in the draft of my

expert report produced in November 1992 (version F2), Prof. R. Fau-risson had not been mentioned in the acknowledgements at the end of the report. He had first been expressly thanked in the authorized ver-sion of my expert report published in July 1993 on the inner cover.According to the Court, this allegedly proves that the authorized ver-sion was planned already in November 1992 (decision, pp. 93, 208ff.

and I realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background. I think it is both tragic—for the victims of those German kangaroo trials—as wellas funny—for the neutral observer to see the desperate attempts of German judges to keep anyevidence out—, but the reader does, of course, not have to agree with me on that.




340

Don’t try to find logic in it. There is none.). It did not enter the judges’minds that I had deleted the acknowledgement to Faurisson from the November 1992 version simply because I feared to be rejected as an

expert witness, should any court recognize that I had been in contactand on good terms with the world’s leading revisionist, and not be-cause I already planned to thank Faurisson later in a prominent place inthe authorized version. The whole argument spun around this pointabout the acknowledgement, which first surfaced in the decision andwas based on different versions of the expert report that had been in-troduced as evidence, had never been mentioned even peripherally inthe 29 days of the trial proceedings, so that the defense was unable to bring in any evidence to counter this supposed evidence proving theguilt of the accused.

Introduction of Evidence After the Verbal DecisionIt is doubtful whether the introduction of evidence following the

trial is admissible. Nevertheless, the District Court of Stuttgart usedexactly this method in order to portray me as untrustworthy. As supposed proof that I had manipulated witnesses, on page 170f. of its deci-

sion the court stated:“Further, during a search of his living quarters on March 27, 1995,which took place in the context of an investigation conducted by the State

Attorney of Tübingen on the book “Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte”, an-other computer belonging to the accused was found on which there wasan answer list that concerned the interrogation of the witness Dill by thecourt, as the accused himself declared in the trial.”

First, the description of the court is misleading, since I had onlydeclared that my computer had been seized, but not that an answer listhad been found on it. This document had been mentioned by the courtin the trial but it had not been introduced as evidence in the trial. For this reason, the defense attorney did not think it necessary to produceevidence to oppose this imputation, which might have explained thatthe item was not an answer list intended for use in an upcoming ques-tioning of a witness. In fact, it was a detailed record I had preparedabout what Dill was asked and what he answered when he appeared for the first time in front of the court, and this list was prepared after this

interrogation, hence could not be used to manipulate this witness at all.




341

Refusal of Foreign Witnesses Without ReasonIn the middle of the 1980s, the German criminal justice system

was altered so that motions could effectively be denied to hear the tes-

timony of foreign witnesses in their own country. In the course of thetrial concerning Remer’s distribution of my report, it became obviousthat several foreign revisionists had participated in the operation indi-rectly or directly. Since these revisionists faced the possibility of arrestif they traveled to Germany, due to their revisionist activity, theywould have had to give their testimony outside the country. Because of the reformulation of the German law, however, it was possible for thecourt in the final phase of the trial to deny numerous motions of the

defense that were intended to hear the testimony of foreign witnessesoutside the country on key questions. The effect this can have on the judgment is obvious.

Prevention of AppealIn criminal proceedings caused by crimes that are considered by

the German authorities to have caused major violations of law and or-der, the trial is held immediately on the District Court level, i.e., on

what normally is supposed to be the appeal level (the first level is theCounty Court). In such cases, the accused has only one trial duringwhich evidence can be presented, that is, there is no appeal possible tothe verdict of this court! Only a so-called application for a revision of the verdict with the German Federal Supreme Court is possible, butsuch an application can only criticize errors of form (matters of law).The factual assertions of the deciding court, i.e., description andevaluation of evidence (matters of fact), will not be discussed anymore.

Furthermore, it is usually the case that applications for a revision will be denied by the German Federal Supreme Court, if the defense is theonly party to request it.

Whoever determines, and on whatever basis, whether or not lawand order have been seriously violated by an offender, must remainopen. But such a serious violation seems to be always given, if the of-fence massively attacked political taboos. In such cases—where theaccused’s entire existence is at stake—he has no possibility of reopen-ing the taking of evidence in an appeal.

The fact that recent attempts were made in Germany to deny anappeal even for trials of minor misdemeanors held before County




342

Courts for the sake of relieving the workload of the court, shows howlittle room for maneuver is left to him who gets caught up in thewheels of justice.

The Arbitrary Evaluation of EvidenceEven if a court has introduced evidence in the course of a trial that

made its delicately constructed bridge of circumstantial evidence tocollapse by refuting it, this is no reason not to impose a sentence. Hereis an example.

In my case, the court had come up with the idea that, already inOctober 1992, I had planned Remer’s distribution activities of his ver-

sion and the subsequent publication of my authorized version as onesingle operation planned in advance (decision pp. 207ff.).At the same time, on Feb. 16, 1995, the court introduced a letter of

mine to Mark Weber, dated May 22, 1993, from which it was clear thatup to the end of May 1993, a month after the end of Remer’s distributionoperation, I still did not know where I could publish my authorized ver-sion of the expert report, which indisputably contradicted the court’sthesis that I was already planning to publish the authorized version at the

same time as I was allegedly helping to plan the Remer operation.Here is a discussion of a second example of the court’s logic-freeevaluation of the evidence. In its written verdict, the court concededthat I intended to get the attention of the lay public for my expert report(decision pp. 23f., 108f., 210), so that I had paid attention that therewas no reason for the general public to suspect any lack of technicalmerit and reputation, e.g., by including political comments (decision pp. 17ff., 196f., 218). This was supported by the evidence as a wholeand in particular by the documents introduced on June 13, 1995, which

was a series of letters that I wrote to various persons between 1991 and1993, all clearly stating that I did not want any political or polemiccomments included in or associated with my expert report. However, if one was to follow this logic, one has to assume that I would have sentout—or agreed to the distribution of—a version of my expert reportwhich confined itself to technical discussion but would never have sentout one such as the Remer version with its polemical/political com-mentary. In the decision the court can escape this logical contradiction

only by claiming that I had miscalculated the effect of Remer’scommentary (p. 228).




343

Incriminating Mitigating EvidenceHaving arrived at a verdict in this way, the tens of pieces of exon-

erating evidence—documents and witnesses—that my lawyer had in-

troduced served the court as evidence of my “criminal energy”, since,according to the court, this exonerating evidence was all partly madeup (decision pp. 13, 22, 65, 118-126, 131, 175, 192) and served only todeceive the court:

“The culpability of the accused is even greater when one takes noteof the high criminal energy with which the crime was committed. The ac-cused acted on the basis of a calculated and highly refined strategy car-ried out in a hidden manner that was chosen beforehand with great de-

liberation, involved numerous deceits and manipulations and was therefore very difficult to penetrate.” (decision p. 237)

Which leads to the Court’s conclusion:

“The sentence of imprisonment is not subject to probation, by sec.56 of the Criminal Code (StGB).” (decision p. 238)

since:

“On the contrary, [the crime of the accused] as described, because

of the calculated and refined and clandestine manner in which it wascarried out, should be seen as particularly grave.” (decision p. 240)

ConclusionsGiven the present circumstances of the criminal justice system in

the Federal Republic of Germany, when a judge or a panel of judgesintend to render an unjust verdict, they will have no difficulty in doingso as long as they are assured there is no organized public resistance

from the media, academia, the police, or the churches.The statements of witnesses and accused may be manipulated at

will. Evidence may be interpreted any which way in the decision or may be brought in after the process is over. Submitted evidence may be passed over without mention and use of foreign witnesses may bedenied arbitrarily.

Exculpatory evidence may be discredited as a deceptive maneuver of the accused and serve as evidence that the accused is particularly

deserving of punishment. A second trial instance to try to correct thesemeasures can be denied in case of public necessity. The evaluation of evidence is bound neither by the evidence introduced nor by logic.




344

The question, how these conditions can be overcome so that fur-ther misuse can be reduced as much as possible, needs to be answered by honest jurists and politicians.

Closing RemarksThe court based its refusal to allow for a probation of the sentence

of imprisonment not only on my supposedly high “criminal energy,” but also on the fact that I did not seem to have a favorable social prog-nosis, since I had not only not repudiated my revisionist views, butdefended them even more vehemently and kept propagandizing them.As proof for this the court pointed to the book Grundlagen zur Zeit-

geschichte,570

edited by me under a pen name, which had come ontothe market just at the beginning of this trial, as well as to the almost-complete book Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten571 found on my computer during a house search conducted in March 1995, i.e., right in the mid-dle of the ongoing proceedings.

With this, a fact was used to harden my punishment that had noteven been determined to be a criminal offense in a legally binding de-cision by a German court in the first place, as was a work which had

not yet been published and which therefore could not even theoreti-cally have been a crime. By German law, it is admissible for a Germancriminal court to take account of the opinions of the accused—here myhistorical revisionist opinions—in the weighing of punishment.Through this back-door, the trial against me was turned into a politicaltrial.572

570 E. Gauss (ed.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, op. cit. (note 43); Engl.: Dissecting the Holo-caust , op. cit. (note 22).

571

Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, op. cit. (note 43).572 This article was completed after the house search of the small Berlin publishing house Verlag der Freunde at the end of November 1995 (triggered by a revisionist article of mine they had

published), when it had become clear that the documentation of my trial intended to be pub-lished by this publisher could not appear; taken from Staatsbriefe 1/1996, Verlag Castel delMonte, Postfach 14 06 28, 80456 Munich, pp. 4-8.




345

11.4. Rudolf’s Thought ‘Crimes’

11.4.1. The First Crime: Remer’s CommentaryReprinted below is the commentary of retired Major General Otto

Ernst Remer, which he included in his version of the Rudolf expertreport, as it was printed on pages 109a to 114 of the court decisionagainst Germar Rudolf.573 After reading this chapter 11 so far, readersshould be in a position to judge whether this commentary was suffi-cient cause to sentence expert witness Germar Rudolf to 14 months’

loss of freedom, had he been the author of the commentary, which hewas not, though the Great State Security Chamber of the District Courtof Stuttgart disregarded the evidence and said he was the author.

On Jan. 19, 1996, the German Attorney General demanded thatGermar Rudolf should spend 14 months behind bars for nothing other than this commentary. The German Federal Supreme Court concurredwith this demand in a decision on March 7, 1996 (ref.: 1 StR 18/96).

In addition to these judicial issues, there were other problems with

Remer’s commentary. In his preface printed on the inside front cover,under the caption “To all friends, countrymen ...” he attacked our lead-ing politicians, media people and jurists harshly with the words,“These liars need to be driven from their spoils fortresses”. At thesame time, Remer mailed this version to exactly these leading politi-cians, media people and jurists. It is certain that to send such a piece of writing to these leading politicians, media people and jurists was en-tirely useless—though it must have cost many thousand DM.

Remer attached a comprehensive five-page article on the October 1992 trial, in which Remer himself had been sentenced to a 22 months prison term for denying the Holocaust and other things. This articlewas written by a close friend of Remer who had attended Remer’s trial.It basically summarizes the major events of this trials, like a descrip-tion of various pieces of evidence presented by the two defense law-yers, their rejection by the court, and the final pleadings of the public prosecutor and Remer’s defence attorneys. The Rudolf Report had

573 For this version, the text of Remer’s comments were retyped, trying to keep the layout asclose to the original as possible. The original German version of this is available online atwww.vho.org/D/Kardinal/Remer.html.




346

been prepared for this and for other trials.In the trial against expert witness Rudolf, the District Court of

Stuttgart took exception against this article, which had been entitled

“ Justice in Germany 1992”. For example, they criticized that the quo-tation from the Foreign Office saying that it was known that there wereno gas chambers in Auschwitz (p. I) was incomplete, as the ellipsesshowed. The quoted German official Dr. Scheel had stated later in hisletter that the gas chambers had been located in the Birkenau campwhich was 3 km to the west. Thus he had not denied the existence of gas chambers in the complex Auschwitz-Birkenau, as the quotationsuggested, but only with respect the main camp Auschwitz. This de-termination of the court is correct and demonstrates that Remer’sfriend misconstrued documents to mislead the public. However, itshould be pointed out that the statement of the Foreign Office thatthere had been no gas chambers in Auschwitz contradicts many wit-nesses, such as Pery S. Broad or Rudolf Höß. If these witnesses werewrong with their statements about the main camp Auschwitz, how canwe be certain that other witnesses to other camps were not just aswrong? How can it be that under such circumstances to doubt the exis-tence of gas chambers in other camps, or even to dispute their exis-

tence, is a criminal offense?The District Court of Stuttgart also commented that the “Compari-

son of official figures on the number of those killed in the gas cham-bers in Auschwitz” (p. II) was insulting and constituted incitement toracial hatred. But in the meantime, quite official and well reputedsources have added even lower figures to this list of massively differ-ing numbers: in 1993 and 1994, the French pharmacist Jean-ClaudePressac claims between 630,000 and 470,000 ‘gas chamber’ victims,

and in 2002, a German mainstream journalist reduced the death toll of the Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ down to as little as 356,000.574 Onecould certainly agree to the view that any number of victims which istoo high or too low can have an insulting effect on some people or canincite to hatred against others. However, it was not Remer who had putthese widely differing figures into the world, among which only onecan be correct at best—and all others potentially inciting to racial ha-tred.

Also, Remer’s statement that the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial had de- 574 See notes 458-460.




347

termined that there were only 45,510 deaths in the gas chambers wasnot strictly true. In 1965, the Frankfurt Jury Court had sentenced someof the former camp staff on grounds of murder of a certain number of

people by poison gas, and for other reasons. All told, it repaid 45,510gas chamber murders in that it found some defendants guilty of havingkilled or contributed to the murder of a certain number of inmates. Asto the question, how many prisoners had been killed by poison gas inAuschwitz all in all, the court had given no answer and did not havethe duty to do so. The determination of the total count of victims is properly a scientific question. That having been said, this would alsomean that the Stuttgart Court did not have the duty nor the competenceeither to make a judgment about the total death toll of Auschwitz, thatis, it should not have criticized others for asking questions and havingdifferent views in this regard.

It remains true that German justice has judicially determined afigure of 45,510 gas chamber deaths, no more, no less, and that any-thing more is a scientific question and not a question of criminal jus-tice. It must be asked then, why one should proceed against peoplewith threats of criminal penalty and use of the magic formula ‘commonknowledge,’ who do nothing else but to assert that counts of victims as

high as several hundred thousand or even several millions are greatlyexaggerated, particularly since several well-known mainstream authorsdo make similar statements. Only that can be judicially claimed to be‘common knowledge’ which has been determined to be so in court onexamination of evidence. With respect to the number of victims of thegas chambers of Auschwitz, that has not been done.

In the written basis for the decision, as proof of their assertion thatthe epilogue of the Remer version had deliberately created the impres-

sion that the Holocaust was used by Jews to exploit Germany, theCourt gave this one example (decision, p. 235):

“This applies especially to the reprinting of a letter claimed to havebeen written by a Jew on May 2, 1991 (p. IV of the epilogue, p. 113above). Together with the assertion that the Holocaust was an inventionof the Jews, this deliberately inflames hatred against the Jews.”

In the epilogue in a display box one sees that Remer has quoted aletter with a sender’s address in Israel, in which the writer inquires

about financial reparations based on the claim that his uncle was alleg-edly gassed in the concentration camp at Dachau. That this letter was




348

written by a Jew is not mentioned anywhere, nor is there any referenceto the religious affiliation of this person in this article. There is also noassertion in Remer’s (or his friend’s) comments “that the Holocaust

was an invention of the Jews,” quite contrary to what the court claims.All that Remer’s friend did was to juxtapose the letter from Israel witha letter from the City of Dachau, in which the latter clarifies that therehad never been any homicidal gassings in the concentration camp atDachau.

The court had not examined whether or not this letter existed,therefore, on the principle “ In dubio pro reo,” it had to assume that itdid exist. In fact, not just Remer but also many other activists had pho-tocopies of the letter which Remer’s friend had reproduced in the appendix to Remer’s version. It is a fact that there is a large number of statements from witnesses attesting to homicidal gassing in Dachau, but it is also well known that both the official Dachau ConcentrationCamp Museum as well as the City of Dachau clearly state that therewere never any homicidal gassings of humans in this concentrationcamp.575

These well-recognized facts were given with the documents pub-lished or quoted by Remer (or his friend), which cannot be a crime. In

his commentary on this letter, Remer points out that false witnessstatements like the one quoted here, attesting to his uncle’s death in aDachau gas chamber, serve as a basis for ‘common knowledge’ inGermany. Nowhere did he make the claim that anybody had lied for purposes of material enrichment. It is the court that is to blame for thecharge that the reader would get the impression from these two repro-duced documents, Remer wanted to impute, Jews had invented a lie for the purpose of exploiting Germany.

That even Jews sometimes make false statements about the period between 1945 and 1993 cannot be disputed. This was particularly clear in the criminal trial of John Demjanjuk in Jerusalem. The trial endedwith an acquittal for the accused, since even the Israeli court could notshut its eyes to the flood of false documents and false witness testi-mony.576 Fortunately, in this case also, Jewish personalities turned

575

There are, of course, other sources contradicting this, see Reinhold Schwertfeger, “Gab esGaskammern im Altreich?”, VffG, 5(4) (2001), pp. 446-449 (online:www.vho.org/VffG/2001/4/Schwertfeger446-449.html).

576 Cf. the summarizing article of Arnulf Neumaier, op. cit. (note 440).




349

against the flood of untruths that appeared in this trial.577 That the same untrustworthy witnesses who appeared in this Jeru-

salem trial had made similar (incredible) statements in trials in Ger-

many and elsewhere, did not affect their credibility in the eyes of theGerman court, of course.In addition, the advertising blitz of the Jews Aze Brauner and his

friends on May 6, 1995, in the German daily newspapers Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutschen Zeitung , which rehashed the oldlies about soap made of the fat of Jews and lampshades made of humanskin which have been repudiated even by the Holocaust Institute Yad-Vashem of Jerusalem,578 did not serve to make our jurists consider thatnot everything a Jew says about the years from 1933 to 1945 is neces-sarily true.

Even the recently reconfirmed information that the Jew IlyaEhrenburg, who was Stalin’s chief propagandist, was one of the worstdeceivers and liars in questions of the supposed National Socialist an-nihilation of the Jews579 does not appear to impress anyone in Ger-many. On the contrary, the Federal German justice system seems toopine that a Jew always tells the truth and that a non-Jew who accusesa Jew of reporting falsehoods or even lying belongs in jail.580

In the decision of the 17th Criminal Chamber of the District CourtStuttgart, there is this discussion on Remer’s preface and epilogue (p.115):

“Although preface and epilogue do not expressly accuse the Jews of having invented the accounts on the Holocaust particularly to gain po-litical and material advantages,”

—read: although the crime of which Germar Rudolf was accusedof had not been committed…

577 Asides from note 576 compare the book of Demjanjuk’s defense lawyer: Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk Affair. The Rise and Fall of the Show Trial , Victor Gollancz, London 1994; cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , March 11, 1995, p. 8.

578 Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Yad Vashem, and Professor Yehuda Bauer finallyadmitted in 1990 that “the Nazis never made soap from human fat ”, The Jerusalem Post Inter-national Edition, May 5, 1990; see M. Weber, JHR 11(2) (1991) pp. 217-227 (online:www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/Weber217-227.html).

579 Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg , Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, Munich 1995;

Engl.: Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL,2001.580 As such Helge Grabitz, NS-Prozesse – Psychogramme der Beteiligten, 2nd ed., C.F. Müller,

Heidelberg 1986, pp. 64-90; cf. Manfred Köhler, op. cit. (note 436).




350

“in the eyes of this court the purpose of the Remer-Version of the‘Expert Report’ is nevertheless to suggest this”

—read: the judges can read the mind and intention of the ac-

cused…“and hence to stir up hostile emotions against the Jews. Provided

that the claims of the ‘Expert Report’ are correct,”

—the court did nothing to find out whether or not Rudolf’s ExpertReport is correct, so it had to assume that it indeed is correct…

“this arises already from the fact that the reader, among others dueto the tendentious statements and attitude, must and had to come to theconclusion that the […] Jews must have consciously forged the accountson the Holocaust.”

—read: even if the Expert Report is correct, the publisher has tomake sure that his readers don’t think wrongly, or he will be punishedfor that, and the judges know the effect of this publication on thereader without even having any evidence for it.

This meant the expert witness was not only punished for a crimethat he had not committed, but also for one that no one had committedin the first place. The crime was invented by the court—they ignoredthe facts and fantasized about what may be written between the lines!

Even though this was Rudolf’s first conviction, this sentencecould, according to the court, not be suspended, (p. 239):

“if only because no positive social prognosis can be made for theaccused (§56 para. 1. Penal Code), who is to be categorized as a fanati-

cal, politically motivated criminal . During and despite of the current trial, the accused did publish more ‘revisionist’ works or prepared them,which once again proves his views. These, too, use the same strategy of

apparent objectivity to deny the Holocaust. For example, in fall 1994 thebook ‘Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte’ [= Dissecting the Holocaust , Au-gust 2000] appeared, and the book against Pressac was prepared. TheCourt has therefore no doubt that, in regard of the laws mentioned, theaccused is not willing to be a law abiding citizen.” (emphasis added)

Here the court openly admits that it sentenced Rudolf to a prisonterm because of his scholarly convictions which allegedly render himan incorrigible criminal. No more proof is needed to show that Rudolf

is politically persecuted in Germany.Furthermore, the court uses publications, which it had called“ scholarly” at the beginning of the verdict and which at that time had




351

not yet finally been declared illegal by any court decision, to justify a prison term without probation.

By the time the judges handed down their verdict in June 1995,

Rudolf had published three books. About the first, Rudolf’s ExpertReport on chemical and technical details of the alleged gas chambersof Auschwitz, the verdict states at page 23:

“This work, the basis of his publishing activities, is essentially writ-ten in a scholarly style. It addresses a chemical detail (the problem of hydrocyanic acid) and does not make any general political conclusions.”

In general, the verdict says about Rudolf’s three main works ( Ex- pert Report , Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grundlagen zur Zeit-

geschichte):“They are characterized by a scholarly attitude with reference to

his expertise as a scientifically trained chemist. Tone and form are gen-erally held in a way, as if they were interested only in the matter. Addi-tionally, intensive discussions of details, tables and graphs as well as vo-luminous references to literature are meant to give the impression of anunbiased and open-minded scholarship. This is primarily true for thethree large publications of the accused” (p. 23 of verdict)

About Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte —now published in Englishunder Dissecting the Holocaust —the verdict says, it includes “a maxi-mum appearance of objectivity” (p. 26), which later was confirmed bytwo German mainstream historians in expert reports they wrote in support of Rudolf’s scholarly work. Of course, the court had to insert theword “appearance”, to cast doubt on the quality of these works, be-cause otherwise it could not possibly have sentenced Rudolf.

Considering the contempt and hate this verdict shows against

Germar Rudolf, such words of open endorsement cannot be underesti-mated. Since the court had to admit that Rudolf’s main works are for-mally scientific and scholarly (form, i.e., appearance, not content, isthe only criterion for scholarly works!), the accused could not possiblyhave committed any crime by publishing them, since the German con-stitution guarantees the freedom of science without restriction in article5.3 of the German Basic Law (Germany’s unofficial constitution). SoRemer’s additions were used instead to tie the rope around Rudolf’sneck.

With this finding, the court turned the historical dissident (revi-sionist) Germar Rudolf into a “thought criminal ”.




352

It should be pointed out here that in May 2002, Fritjof Meyer, aneditor of Germany’s largest, left-wing weekly magazine Der Spiegel ,stated in a scholarly article addressing the alleged death toll of Ausch-

witz that the evidence indicates only some failed test gassings for theBirkenau crematoria, but no mass murder on a genocidal scale.581 Thissensational statement is close to the claim Rudolf has been makingsince 1992, i.e., that “the mass gassings […] did not take place [as]claimed by witnesses”. Hence, Meyer’s article is nothing short of a partial but timely rehabilitation of Rudolf, and it might take only oneor two more revisions of the official historiography of Auschwitz toreach the point where it agrees totally with what Rudolf is stating in hisexpert report.

I pondered a long time over the question whether or not to reprintRemer’s comments, since they caused me an awful lot of distress. But Ithink he had a perfect right to say what he had to say, and it was reallya scandal how the German legal system persecuted this old man.Though I do not agree with everything Remer and his friend wrote, andmuch less with their style, I decided to reprint these comments in full,so that the reader can understand, how easy one can get imprisoned inGermany for making, endorsing, or—as in my case—simply being as-sociated with hot-headed, but perfectly legal and harmless statements.

—————— Remer’s commentary ——————

[Preface]

Otto Ernst Remer, General-major, retired, Winkelser Str. 11E,8730 Bad Kissingen, Tel: 0971-63741, Fax: 69634

To all friends, countrymen and people who love the truth: I

am in distress!

On October 22, 1992, the District Court of Schweinfurt, Judge

581 F. Meyer, “ Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz”, Osteuropa, 52(5) (2002), pp. 631-641, here p.

632; for critical reviews of these artciles, see Germar Rudolf, “Cautious Mainstream Revision-ism”, The Revisionist , 1(1) (2003), pp. 23-30 (online: www.vho.org/tr/2003/Rudolf23-30.html); Carlo Mattogno, “ Auschwitz. The new Revisions by Fritjof Meyer ”, The Revisionist ,1(1) (2003), pp. 30-37 (online: www.vho.org/tr/2003/Mattogno30-37.html).




353

Siebenbürger presiding, sentencedme to 22 months prison without probation. This is the equivalent of a

death sentence for me.The trial against me was not areal trial. The main session of thetrial ended in a deadlock. The sen-tence was equivalent to the destruc-tion of an 80-year old man. I was not permitted to defend myself againstcharges consisting of lies, harass-ment, and attacks on my honor. Thecourt denied me the possibility of defense by means of sec. 186 of theGerman Penal Code. It refused to put my assertions to the test of ex-amination.

My defense attorney had asked the expert witness Rudolf to appear. This expert witness was in the courtroom, his expert report hadalready been submitted along with other official records. However, the

expert witness was not allowed to speak and the expert report was notallowed to be read. The expert report and irrefutable scientific factswere denied by presiding judge Siebenbürger.

Earlier, Diplom-Chemist Rudolf had been assigned by my defenseattorney, retired Colonel Hajo Herrmann, as expert witness to investi-gate testimony concerning alleged homicidal gassings at Auschwitz.Rudolf used modern scientific, precise measurement techniques to es-tablish the presence of cyanic residue.

No physical evidence has ever been presented in court to supportclaims of homicidal gassings: no document, no photo, and no ordersfrom military or civil authorities. Can you imagine that a group of people as large as the population of Munich could be annihilated withoutleaving any traces of the crime? The only proofs of mass homicidalgassings are absurd witness statements. In the great Frankfurt Ausch-witz trial (50/4 Ks 2/63) the court ‘proved’ the existence of homicidalgas chambers with the testimony of a single eye-witness, named Böck,

who reported having seen thousands of Jews killed with Zyklon B. Hetestified that he “ saw with my own eyes” how the prisoners’ commandoworked without any protective garment in the midst of this Zyklon B

ret. Major General Otto Ernst Remer in 1992




354

gas, still hovering in blueclouds over the corpses, with-out suffering ill effects. What

is the difference betweenBöck’s testimony and that of eye-witnesses who confirmedunder oath that they sawwitches riding brooms on their way to the Blocksberg?

In a powerful and irrefutable scientific work, my expert witnessmade a shattering discovery. The buildings in Auschwitz which are pointed out to tourists as homicidal gas chambers, in which millions of Jews were allegedly killed, never came in contact with Zyklon B. Theanalyses were carried out by no less an organization than the renownedFresenius Institute. Notable historians agree that this research will reviseworld history.

This expert report has been in the hands of the Federal Chancellor,the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of Jews inGermany), the Federal Attorney General, the Ministry of Justice, andnotable scientists and personalities for more than a year. Every one of

them remained as quiet as a mouse.The condition under which my expert witness agreed to testify

was that his report should be presented only to the court. He specifi-cally forbade me to make his report available to the public. However,since the Auschwitz Lie has become an instrument which threatens theexistence of all Germans, I can no longer allow myself to be bound bythis condition.

I myself shall die in prison for publishing scientific facts. By

means of an unbelievably satanic twisting of history our people will beheld defenseless and “ subject to extortion”, as the Association of Ger-man Veterans wrote in its journal Soldat im Volk no. 7/8 in 1992. Inthis condition of eternal abject surrender we shall be destroyed bymeans of a horrifying ‘multiculturalism.’ This has forced me to a desperate defensive measure, which takes the form of unauthorized publi-cation of Rudolf’s Expert Report on the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Since 1945, generations of German politicians have not only ac-quiesced in these ghastly lies against the German nation, they have participated in manufacturing them. The same applies to the mass me-

The masonry samples taken by Rudolf were analyzed by the renowned Institut

Fresenius.




355

dia. These elements are doing everything they can to propagate themost vicious lies in the history of mankind through the German crimi-nal justice system. When the truth comes to light, these corrupt and

venal politicians know that they will be scorned by the public. Themedia brotherhood know they will be reviled as liars and driven fromtheir posh editorial offices.

This whole pack of liars should be scorned and despised, deprivedof position and driven from their spoils fortresses for what they havedone to our people. I would like to contribute to this.

You too can help distribute this Expert Report. In the first phase of this operation, I myself will send copies to 1,000 leading Germans.Among them will be leaders of the military, business, scientific, anduniversity communities, in particular members of chemistry and his-tory faculties. I shall send a copy to every representative in parliamentas well as media personalities.

In the second and third phases, I shall send another 1,000 copies of this scientific report. No person of prominence will be able to say thathe did not know the truth.

These operations will be very expensive since postage alone costs4 Marks per copy. Therefore I need your support. By ordering a copy

of the Expert Report, you will be helping help me to distribute this ir-refutable scientific document. Additional contributions will enable ad-ditional distribution. I am counting on your help.

Faithfully yours, Otto Ernst Remer 25th October 1992

I have added Sections I-V of the report of my trial in Schweinfurt.After reading this report, you will understand the desperation of mydefense effort.

[Appendix]

Justice in Germany 1992:

“Death Sentence for General Remer”This trial report by E. Haller is taken from REMER DEPESCHE no.

6/1992




356

Schweinfurt (EH) - On October 22, 1992, the FirstGreat Criminal Chamber of the District Court of

Schweinfurt, Judge Siebenbürger presiding, sen-tenced General Remer for publication of a scientificexpert report. The main point of the expert reportRemer had published was: there were no mass kill-ings in Auschwitz with Zyklon B. The court called thispublication ‘incitement to racial hatred,’ and Sieben-bürger imposed on General Remer a sentence of 22months imprisonment without probation. State Attor-ney Baumann demanded a 30 months prison termand moved for the immediate arrest of the 80-year

old defendant in the courtroom. Observers of the trialbegan to suspect that the sentence had been de-cided before the trial began. At 9:00 hours on Octo-ber 20, 1992, the day the trial opened, radioBAYERN 1 had announced: “This time it will cost Remer. […] this time the punishment will be harder .”How did the announcer from B1 know that GeneralRemer would be punished more severely than inprevious trials? Why was an acquittal not conceiv-

able?

This document is one of many that were pre-sented to the court as evidence.

Answer: “Denied on grounds of commonknowledge.”

Kahlenbergerdorf (Austria), the 2.6.1988,

Source: Honsik, Acquittal for Hitler?

As a Roman Catholicpriest I say to you ... ques-tion the existence of gaschambers in the ThirdReich. It is the right of those who seek the truthto be allowed to doubt,investigate and evaluate.Wherever this doubtingand evaluating is forbid-den, wherever someonedemands that he must bebelieved, an arrogancearises that is a blasphemyto God. This is why. If those whom you doubthave the truth on their side, they will accept anyquestions gracefully andanswer them patiently.

They will no longer hidetheir proofs and their re-cords. If these are lying,they will cry for the judge.That is how you will recog-nize them. The truth isalways graceful, while liescry out for earthly judges.

Respectfully,

with best regards,

/s/ Pastor Viktor Robert Knirsch

FOREIGN OFFICE

214-E-Stuparek

Bonn , 8th Jan. 1979

Dear Mr. Stuparek!

Federal Minister Genscher has asked me to respond toyour letter of December 21, 1978.

As far as I know, there were no gas chambers in thecamp of Auschwitz ...

Best regards,

For the Federal Minister,

/s/ Dr. Scheel




357

What had Remer done? As editor of the periodical Remer Depe- sche, the highly-decorated front-line officer had published the resultsof a number of scientific expert reports. One of them was the Leuchter

Report , which former Minister of Justice Engelhard described as “ sci-entific research”. Fred Leuchter is a constructor of execution gaschambers that use hydrogen cyanide in the USA. Later, the Director of the Auschwitz Museum, Dr. F. Piper, assigned the Jan Sehn Institut inCracow to make a similar expert report. A technical expert report inGerman in conjunction with the renowned Institute Fresenius followedin February 1992. The discussion that the General had opened up withhis publications was desired even by the Federal President. A letter from the Presidential Office on October 23, 1989, states that vonWeizsäcker “will follow the discussion [on the Leuchter Report ]closely”. Had the Federal President lured General Remer into a trapwith this letter? Remer naturally felt that ex-Minister of Justice Engel-hard and the Federal President had encouraged him to publish his facts.

Homicidal gas chambers that never came in contact withgas

All three expert reports came to the same conclusion: The gaschambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau testified to by witnesses never came in contact with Zyklon B. In legal terms: the weapon was notloaded. For better understanding: When hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B)comes into contact with concrete or stones, it forms permanent compounds with traces of iron in such building material. The compoundthat develops is blue (hence the German name Blue Acid ( Blausäure)for hydrogen cyanide, although the gas itself is colorless) and occurson the surface and within the walls exposed to gas. Today, one can eas-ily see a massive blue dyeing on both inner and outer walls in the de-lousing buildings. There is no such dyeing in the alleged homicidal gaschambers. Chemical analyses of samples from the delousing buildingsshow very high concentrations of cyanide, while no traces can befound in samples from the alleged gas chambers. Scientific expert reports were never produced for any of the numerous National Socialisttrials. No physical proof was ever offered.




358

In Nuremberg, the propaganda lies of the victors were givenreference numbers. Since then they have become ‘facts.’

All courts have continually prevented all gas chamber skepticsfrom use of any evidence for their scientific investigations. The courtshave taken the point of view that the homicidal gas chambers should beregarded as commonly known ‘facts’. ‘Commonly known’ means thatthe existence of homicidal gas chambers is as certain a fact as that theday has 24 hours. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal introduced the useof ‘common knowledge’ into judicial practice. Pure war horror propa-ganda items from the Second World War were turned into ‘facts’(IMT-Statutes 19 and 21) which had to be accepted without question

by the accused. Defense attorneys who attempted to prove the oppositewere threatened with the death penalty. The Stalinist massacre at Ka-tyn was one of the charges, as well as homicidal gassings in the former concentration camp Dachau (IMT Document 2430-PS). In Document3311-PS, the Polish government “ put the victors’ tribunal on notice”that hundreds of thousands of Jews had been “ steamed ” at Treblinka. Note: “ steamed ”, not ‘gassed’. Today, the Holocausters look downshamefully when they are confronted with this nonsense. In the great

National Socialist trial before the District and Chamber Court of Berlin(ref. PKs 3-50) it was determined: “There were no gas chamber struc-tures in the concentration camp Majdanek ”. But in Schweinfurt, Gen-eral Remer was sentenced to imprisonment because he had publishedin his Depeschen the court’s determination on the absence of gaschambers in Majdanek.

To destroy the German people, only these words are necessary:‘common knowledge.’

Concerning the alleged gas chambers, no one can speak of thekind of common knowledge such as that which underlies the fact thatthe day has 24 hours. Only such assertions, as that the day has 24hours, require no proof. In all other cases there must be proof.

Remer’s proofs are new and far superior The defense attorneys, Hajo Herrmann and Dr. Herbert Schaller,

had prepared comprehensive evidence. They prepared their evidence to

conform with a decision of the Upper District Court of Düsseldorf. In a‘gas chamber denial’ case, this court held that evidence must be admit-ted when it was superior to the ‘proofs’ in the former National Socialist




359

trials. New, superior evidence trumps ‘common knowledge’, accordingto the Düsseldorf court. The evidence submitted by the defense is newand far superior to that from the National Socialist trials, since there

was no physical evidence presented there.

Auschwitz: ‘Annihilation camp’ with a brothel, legal ad-vice, sauna and soccer ...

Before the examination of the evidence that had been submitted,attorney Herrmann addressed the State Attorney and judge: “ It must be

proven, whether there were gas chambers or not, before there can be adecision on common knowledge. The court must determine facts.” At-

torney Herrmann then presented evidence taken from anti-fascist litera-ture and from court documents that showed that Auschwitz was no an-

Herr Judge Siebenbürger, Herr State Attorney Baumann, pleasetell me which of the following figures is ‘common knowledge’.

Why have you not told the General during the trial which number he should believe in? For which number should Remer now die in

prison?

Comparison of official figures on the number of those killedin the gas chambers of Auschwitz:

Jul. 26, 1990: Allgemeine Jüdische Wo-chenzeitung 4,000,000

June 11, 1992: Allgemeine JüdischeWochenzeitung 1,500,000

Apr. 20, 1978: French newspaper LeMonde 5,000,000

Sept. 1., 1989: French newspaper Le Monde 1,472,000

1945: International Military Tribunal in

Nuremberg4,000,000

1985: Raul Hilberg: Die Vernichtung der eu-

ropäischen Juden 1,250,000

1979: The Pope during his visit toAuschwitz4,000,000

July 1990: The left-wing TAZ and other news-papers960,000

April 1990: Chief State AttorneyMajorowsky/Wuppertal4,000,000

1974: G. Reitlinger: Die Endlösung 850,000

1945: French War Crimes InvestigationsOffice8,000,000

1989: USSR releases death-books.Total deaths66,000

1989: Eugen Kogon: Der SS-Staat 4,500,000

1965: Auschwitz decision 50/4 Ks 2/63.including claimed gassing deaths45,510

1989: Lie-memorial tablet in Birkenauremoved, with number 4,000,000

1965: Auschwitz decision 50/4 Ks 2/63,without claimed gassing deaths619




360

nihilation camp. The attorney read how there had been a brothel for prisoners in Lager Auschwitz, that there had been weekly soccer games between SS staff and camp inmates, that there was a central

sauna, that legal advice was available to the inmates, that in case of non-natural death the camp administration had to notify the appropriateState Attorney with over 30 signatures, that prisoners could be re-leased, that SS-men were not allowed to hit prisoners, that 4,800 sick persons were under medical care (although in the usual version, theylanded in the ‘gas chambers’ right away), and that, when the camp wasabandoned, the prisoners preferred evacuation by the SS over Soviet‘liberation’…

The State Attorney roarsThis piece of evidence made the State Attorney roar. “This piece

of evidence is an insult to the victims”, he yelled into the courtroomwith a red face. Herrmann replied, “Then your victims were insulted bythe decision in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, Herr State Attorney.Most of what I have just read are observations of the court in the great

Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt. You can read them in the decision.” At

this the State Attorney was speechless. It is peculiar, how a State At-torney can free himself from almost any evidentiary difficulty withonly two magical words: ‘common knowledge’. He knew nothingabout the decision in the National Socialist trials and he knew next tonothing about historical connections or physical facts. All a state attor-ney needs in such a case is to be able to pronounce the words, “denied on account of common knowledge.”

The court refused to accept this evidence. That is, it refused to ac-cept whole passages from the decision in the Auschwitz trial in Frank-

furt as well as passages from the writings of ‘survivors’ such as Lang- bein. Naturally, on account of “common knowledge”.

The English crown: no gassingsAs part of the evidence he submitted, Dr. Schaller presented the

book of Jewish Princeton Professor Arno J. Mayer. In his book, Mayer concludes that the majority of Auschwitz prisoners died of naturalcauses and that there was no “ Hitler order ” for the ‘gassing’ of the

Jews. Mayer confirms that “ proofs” for the gas chambers are “rare and unreliable”. As evidence against the ‘common knowledge of gas




361

chambers’, the attorney submitted a book by British history professor F. H. Hinsley. Hinsley is the official historian of the English crown.His book British Intelligence in the Second World War can be obtained

from the royal stationer’s office. There was a new edition in 1989. On page 673, Hinsley states that from 1942 the English were able to break the coded messages from the German concentration camps. The Eng-lish found that the main cause of death in the camps was illness.Hinsley reports that there were also shootings and hangings. The offi-cial historical scientist of the English royal house states: “There was nomention of gassings in the decoded messages.”

The State Attorney moved that this evidence, too, be refused onaccount of ‘common knowledge’. One more time, the court agreedwith the State Attorney. At this point, the trial was suspended. It re-sumed on October 22, 1992. Every time General Remer reentered thecourtroom after a pause in the proceedings, the public stood respect-fully. Many remained sitting when the court entered, however.

An expert witness is kept outThe defense surprised the court with an evidence physically pre-

sent in the court room, the technical expert Diplom-Chemist G. Rudolf.By the court’s rules of procedure, evidence that is physically presentcan not be refused, even on account of ‘common knowledge’. Thetechnical expert sat in the courtroom. He had researched the allegedgas chambers in Auschwitz from a physico-chemical point of view. Hehad taken samples of mortar and had them analyzed by the InstituteFresenius. Also he had conducted his own laboratory experiments inwhich he had gassed masonry with hydrogen cyanide. The expert wit-ness could present scientific proof that the alleged gas chambers never

came in contact with Zyklon B. The expert report prepared by the expert witness was submitted to the court with the rest of the evidence.The expert witness could also prove that prisoner commandos couldnot have “ gone into blue clouds of Zyklon B still hovering over thecorpses”, without having been killed themselves. This nonsensical tes-timony on work in the midst of clouds of Zyklon B had been given byRichard Böck, the principal witness in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt.Thus Böck was asserting that the commando had been immune to Zyk-

lon B. Yet the judge in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt believed that hehad proved the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz with Böck’s




362

statement. Böck had witnessed the gassings in two farm-houses whichnever existed, according to a technical report of HANSA LUFTBILD,which analyzed Allied air-reconnaissance photos. The expert witness

could also prove that hydrogen cyanide is a colorless poison. The expert witness was sitting in the courtroom. He could provide clarifica-tion. What did the State Attorney have to say about that?

“ I move that the expert witness be refused, since the gas chambersare common knowledge fact ”, was State Attorney’s monotonous re-frain. He demanded that the expert witness be refused without histechnical qualifications having been examined. The court agreed withthe motion of the State Attorney and refused the expert witness, with-out having heard a word he had to say, as “completely unsuitable evi-dence”. In addition, the court refused to read the expert report, becauseof ‘common knowledge.’

No one can see the Auschwitz death-booksAttorney Herrmann next submitted a large selection from the offi-

cial death books of Auschwitz. In 1989, these death books had beenreleased by the Soviet Union. These official papers documented 66,000

cases of death in minute detail. All of them are under seal at the specialeffects office in Arolsen. No one is allowed to look at them. A tencountry commission, including Israel, prevents any inspection of thesedocuments. Recently, the journalist W. Kempkens succeeded in photo-copying these documents in the Moscow archive. Herrmann submitteda representative sample to the court. The defense attorney moved thatKempkens be allowed to testify. The Holocausters keep talking abouthow the old and unfit-for-work Jews were sorted out on the ‘ramp’ and‘gassed’ immediately, so they could not have been entered in the camp

register. The death books prove the opposite. Most of the entries wereelderly men and most were Jews. The State Attorney moved that thedocuments should not be admitted as evidence, since the gas chambersare ‘common knowledge’ fact. The court agreed with the motion of theState Attorney.

The State Attorney’s pleadingAt that point, the taking of evidence was ended and the State At-

torney began his pleading. He did not need any evidence, since for himthe ‘gas chambers’ are ‘common knowledge.’ He described Remer as




363

Mephisto (the devil) for “denying ”what is “common knowledge.” For such a “devil ”, he argued, the abso-

lute minimum sentence should beimprisonment for two years and sixmonths. He moved that the impris-onment begin immediately.

Defense Attorney Herrmann’s pleading

The attorney protested, “We

have submitted evidence in manyareas, but the court has never under-taken to examine whether the ac-cused had a valid claim.” Once moreHerrmann discussed the denial of evidence in connection with the ‘confession’ of the former camp com-mander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß. “The court had refused to allow thereading of Höß’s torture with the comment that it had not been proven

that Höß had made a false confession because of torture. But Höß’sconfession is false”, thundered the retired colonel, a former inspector of Germany’s WWII night fighters, in the courtroom. “ Höß confessed 3 million murdered Jews. Today Holocaust historians say the number killed is 1.5 million”, he flung at the State Attorney and judge. ThenHerrmann read the record of the capture of Höß. It is described therehow the former commandant was thrown on a butcher bench and howhis face was smashed for hours. The Jewish sergeant shoved a guide-lamp staff deep in his throat and dumped a whole bottle of whiskeyinto his victim. His handcuffs were left on for three weeks. “That’swhat you don’t want to hear, Herr State Attorney”, the defense attor-ney’s words rang out. Then Herrmann read relevant paragraphs fromthe transfer treaty of the occupying powers. In these paragraphs, Ger-many was forced to recognize forever the historical ‘facts’ that werethe basis of the Nuremberg trials. And so German courts still say‘common knowledge’ to the four million Auschwitz lie, to the lieabout gassings in Dachau and the lie about “mass steamings” in Treb-

linka. Nonsense and oppression know no limit.“ I note”, said the attorney, “that the accused was denied his right.

Defense Attorney ret. Colonel Hajo Herrmann




364

Not only the State Attorney is bound politically. This is about an obligation imposed on the state by the transfer treaty of the victorious powers. But this treaty has no place in this court of law.”

Then he continued, “ I have never before seen the public stand when an accused enters the courtroom. Yes, the general is no turncoat,

Judge Siebenbürger and State Attorney Baumann justi-fied themselves with this kind of witness when they yell,“Evidence denied on account of common knowledge.”

Holon, Israel I once had an uncle in KarlsruheB/Baden that was gast in Dchau. I can get some damajes frm this??

Much thank in advans! [misspellings in source]

This text is taken from a letter that was mailed on May 2, 1991, fromHolon/Israel to a German acquaintance with the request for help with anapplication for compensation. The writer’s uncle was “ gast ” in Dachau

and he wanted “damajes”. For Judge Siebenbürger and State AttorneyBaumann, this served to prove that the gas chambers are ‘commonknowledge’. Response of the City of Dachau:

City of DACHAU District capital

(coat of arms) Our Ref.: 4.2/Ra/Sa Artists' town for 1200 years Date: 14.11.88

Dear Herr Geller!

With reference to your question, I must inform you that there wereno gassings in the former concentration camp Dachau ...

Best regards - Rahm; Director of Administration




365

and that is basically what you are accusing him of .” Herrmann pin- pointed the State Attorney’s error: “The State Attorney refuses to ac-cept as evidence the decision of the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, which

counted 45,510 dead .” Herrmann hammered on the conscience of theState Attorney, which does not exist. Then he continued, “ But, accord-ing to the State Attorney, the accused must know that 6 million Jewswere gassed .” Herrmann turned to the judge’s bench and shouts: “Thecourt intends to prove that the defendant acted with criminal intent,that ‘he knows it.’ ”

The public realized that this great man had lived through timeswhere just dealing, dignity, honor, and decency were still common. Atrial like the present was very difficult for him. Once again, Herrmanncounted the denied pieces of evidence and asked, “Who in this court-room was not well served by the defense?” Then he confronted theState Attorney and said, “The State Attorney will try to convince theaccused that he knew that what he said was not true. Herr State Attor-ney, you do not sit in the back of the accused’s head.”

Then the attorney said what he thought was behind the court’s—inmany people’s opinion—scandalous handling of the trial: “ I believethat there is another power that hangs over our legal system that gives

you your orders. I know that if you were to acquit, there would be a great howling—not just here, but mostly in other countries. If you fear this, you should decline to conduct the trial. How can you designateeven one piece of evidence as superfluous when the issue is life or death, as it is here? You should recollect that the chief prosecutor at

Nuremberg described the victorious powers’ tribunal as a continuationof the war against Germany. One cannot so totally destroy and plun-der a civilized people such as the Germans without an ostensible rea-

son or pretext. Auschwitz was that pretext. If ‘common knowledge’ does not endure forever, at what limit of common knowledge do we find ourselves now? Yes, this ‘commonknowledge’ will collapse, but will the accused die in his prison cell beforehand?” With that, Attorney Herrmann ended his pleading.

Dr. Schaller’s pleading“This is a political trial of a very peculiar nature”, the courageous

Viennese attorney threw at the judge and State Attorney. “ For the reason that it deals with a crime of opinion, where there was no violence.




366

The defenders of democracy sit onthe accuser’s bench. When a democ-ratic state takes upon itself the

power to determine what the truth is,it is no longer a democracy”, theattorney admonished the State At-torney and court.

Dr. Schaller told of a case inFrankfurt of an African drug dealer with a criminal history who stuck a17 centimeter long knife into theabdomen of a young German be-cause the latter did not want to buydrugs. The attorney quoted the

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, as to how the judge inthis case would not regard the as-sault as attempted murder or even asattempted manslaughter. She regarded it as a case of the African’smerely wanting to “teach the German a lesson.” This example of jus-

tice in modern day Germany that Dr. Schaller so graphically portrayedis reminiscent of the case of two Turks who stabbed an 18-year oldGerman in Berlin because the latter had blond hair. Both Turks hadalready been convicted of manslaughter, yet they received probation.For the 80-year old General Remer who published scientific papers,the State Attorney wants the ‘death sentence’. In the waiting room, people passed around articles from large German newspapers relatinghow foreign murderers, robbers and mankillers are set free because

indictments cannot be prepared in time due to ‘shortage of staff’. Everyspectator was outraged that there was no shortage of judges to handlethe prosecution and indictment of an acknowledged national hero be-cause of his publication of the truth. Dr. Schaller said further: “To

prosecute assertions of fact in the same way that murderers should be prosecuted—but today no longer are—will lead to social collapse.

The state should take care that arguments are expressed in words.The truth does not need criminal justice. The truth will prevail of its

own power”, the attorney scolded the State Attorney. The attorney fur-ther said: “ Doesn’t the State Attorney’s demand for a two and a half year sentence for the publication of scientific knowledge smell of

Defense Attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller




367

[communist east German] GDR justice? And such a thing for an 80- year old man? Is this Bautzen? [a prison for political prisoners in for-mer communist east Germany]” demanded Dr. Schaller. “This defense

team has introduced a plethora of evidence that supports the claims of the accused. A plethora of proofs and expert reports that has never been presented to any court of the victorious wartime Allies. And yet,the Allies’ magic words from Nuremberg, ‘common knowledge’ should

still apply here?” Facing the State Attorney, Schaller asked, “Supposethat we had a new government in Germany and this government wereto examine the manner in which you servants of the state are proceed-ing, keeping in mind paragraphs 56 and 62 through 65 of the Basic

Law. Do you think you would escape harm from the hands of the Ger-man people?” Then, facing the public: “Suppose the State Attorney had to justify his charges against the General. Suppose a judge should ask him, what proof do you have of the existence of homicidal gas cham-bers? He would have nothing to show. But as of today, no state attor-ney needs to produce evidence. We have not arrived at that point yet.”

Next he quoted the Jewish revisionist, Rabbi Immanuel Jakobo-vits, who says: “Today, there is a whole spectrum of business relating to the Holocaust Industry, with authors, researchers, museum curators

and politicians.” To the judges’ bench, Dr. Schaller hollered, “The real threat to public order begins when one demands of the German peoplethat they should assume guilt for gas chamber murders.

These are dangerous perversions which construe publication of scientific investigation of alleged gas chambers as defamation and in-citement to racial hatred. How does the State Attorney dispute this sci-entific evidence which the accused has published? He merely tells usthat we Germans should and must remain guilty as charged at the

Nuremberg trials following World War II. That is all.On the other hand, defense counsel have an expert witness here inthe chamber who has produced an expert report that leaves no ques-tion unanswered. The expert witness has come to the indisputable sci-entific conclusion that the so-called gas chambers never came in con-tact with Zyklon B gas. Never!”

Schaller continued, “There sits the technical expert, who is not al-lowed to say a word. A scientist from the world renowned Max-Planck-

Institute is not allowed to testify in a German court! And you want to send General Remer to prison? Are you willing to accept responsibility for that?”




368

Then, raising his voice: “The accused has the right to expect that the court will fulfill its duty. that is, to inquire into the innocence of theaccused. This kowtowing to the victorious Allies of World War II can-

not go on forever!” With the following words tears came to his eyes:“Why should a man be put to the sword to keep alive this mythology of wartime propaganda? Mr. State Attorney, you should not continue be-lieving novels that become ever more lurid with the passage of time. It cannot go on like this, to leave one’s own people standing out in thecold. Please allow the introduction of evidence once more.” Thus thedefense attorney closed his pleading.

The General’s closing words“To this kangaroo court that has denied me the introduction of scientific evidence I have only one thing to say.” General Remer pointed at the state attorney and the judge. “Germany will one day hold you responsible for what you have done in this courtroom.”

ResumeGeneral Remer seems to be dangerous to the former victorious

powers because he has brought about a discussion of Auschwitz withhis scientific publications. If Remer can prove his case, the Allies willlose their justification for having butchered and looted the German people. The Jews will lose, as Prof. Wolffsohn says, “their only re-maining identity-forming myth.” For these reasons, General Remer iscondemned to die in jail. This death sentence is reminiscent of other cases of unsolved deaths such as those of Franz Josef Strauß and hiswife Marianne. First Marianne died of unexplained causes in a traffic

accident, then the fit, healthy former Minister President of Bavaria passed away under unusual circumstances which are not medically ex- plicable.

The Allgemeing Jüdische Wochenzeitung (German Jewish weeklynewspaper) of October 29, 1992, recalled Strauß’ goals: “The declara-tion of Franz J. Strauß on February 1, 1987, that the Federal Republic

should come out from under the shadow of the Nazi past and begin anew chapter in the book of history...”

The transfer treaty of the victorious powers forbids Germany to

“come out from under the shadow of the Nazi past and begin a newchapter in the book of history”. The Allies would lose forever their




369

justification for the horrendous crimes and ethnic cleansing which theycommitted against Germany, and the Jews would lose their identity-forming principle. This might endanger the existence of the state of

Israel. Are there parallels between Remer’s ‘death sentence’ and thedeath of Marianne and F. J. Strauß?

11.4.2. The Second Crime: A Scientific Anthology

German Court Order: Scientific Work Must Burn!Since the 7th of May 1995, Judge Burkhardt Stein of the County

Court of Tübingen held court on the fates of the publisher, editor, andsome of the authors of the fundamental revisionist work Grundlagen

zur Zeitgeschichte (ref. 4 Gs 173/95).570 First, the proceedings againstthe authors were separated on various grounds. Next, the trial againstthe editor Ernst Gauss alias Germar Rudolf was separated since theaccused was not present at the proceedings. For that reason, JudgeStein issued an arrest warrant against Rudolf.

During the trial, the public attorney and the judge accused the pub-lisher Wigbert Grabert that the incriminated book would meet the testfor the crime of inciting to racial hatred in that it used a number of Holocaust denying adjectives such as “ supposed ”, “ presumed ” and“ so-called ”. In order to show that the book had scientific merits, thedefense attorney insisted that while reading certain passages from the book, one needed to consult the comprehensive and detailed footnotesthat it contained, which made reference mostly to books of establish-

ment sources. The judge merely turned toward Susanne Teschner, the public attorney, and answered that the court would not think out loudduring the trial. The court denied numerous motions of the defense for recourse to relevant expert reports or for access to court records thatmight show that the words “ supposed ”, and so forth, did not per seconstitute an intentional denying.

The court also denied two motions of the defense to suspend thetrial on grounds that in this trial there was theoretically no possibility

that the judge would acquit the accused, because in such a case the judge himself might encounter social harassment or even criminal re- prisal from the judicial system, as the case of Judge Orlet in the trial




370

against the revisionist Günter Deckert had shown.Several days after the beginning of the trial, the expert witness Dr.

Joachim Hoffmann was interrogated as to whether the book Grundla-

gen zur Zeitgeschichte was scientific. Dr. Hoffmann, for decades a his-torian in the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt (Military HistoryResearch Department) of the German Bundeswehr in Freiburg, wrotean expert report on request of the defendant Germar Rudolf (see be-low).

During his interrogation, the expert witness stated that terms suchas “ presumed ” or “ supposed ” did not please him, yet he did not con-sider that they put the scientific merit of the book in question.

The public attorney’s pleading was next. The phrases in the book that offended her most—“ supposed annihilation camp”, “ Auschwitzbludgeon”, “ Holocaust religion”, “identity-forming group fantasies”,“ supposed genocide”, “established Holocaust scene”, “lead ad absur-dum”—although taken partly from established publications, deny the National Socialist murder of Jews and therefore qualify as incitementto racial hatred. According to the public attorney, the expert witnessDr. Hoffmann was no more competent to judge whether the book wasscientific than a judge or a state attorney is, and his expert report

should therefore be disregarded. The publisher Grabert should be sen-tenced to 9 months prison on probation.

On the last day of the trial, held on a Saturday(!),582 June 15, 1996,in his pleading the defense attorney referred to the denunciations of the public attorney, whereby the book was allegedly a pseudoscientifichack-job of the vilest sort, saying that this sort of speech was “ pseudo-legal browbeating ” without content or definition. The defense pointedto the high degree of scientific expertise that had been necessary to

produce the book and also to the fact that the expert witness had unre-servedly confirmed the book’s scientific quality. He also pointed outthat sec. 130 para. 3 of the German Penal Code (StGB, incitement toracial hatred) was unconstitutional when it served to deliver provenscientific publications up to book-burning.

The judge sentenced the publisher Grabert to pay a fine of DM30,000 ($15,000) and ordered the seizure—in effect, the burning—of all copies of Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte as well as all materials

needed to produce it. In the written verdict, he stated that although582 In Germany, courts of law do not hold sessions on Saturdays—with this exeption.




371

parts of the book had scientific merit, phrases such as “ supposed ”,“ presumed ”, “burnt sacrifice of the Jews”, “imputed systematic na-ture”, “ furious fantasies”, although partly drawn from citations of es-

tablished personages, denied the Holocaust and therefore qualified asthe crime of incitement to racial hatred.

A Historian’s Expert ReportJoachim Hoffmann was born on December 1, 1930, in Königs-

berg, East Prussia. Since 1951, he initially studied natural sciences, butlater changed to study modern history, eastern European history, andcomparative ethnology at the University of Hamburg and the Free

University of Berlin. He ended his studies with a PhD degree in1959/1960. In the same year, he became Academic Director at theMilitärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt , the official historical researchinstitute of the German Armed Forces. He stayed in this position untilhe retired in 1995, more and more specializing on the German-Sovietwar of 1941-1945. He has published numerous articles and books andwon several cultural awards. Dr. Hoffmann died in February 2002. Thefollowing is the text of his expert report written in defence of Germar

Rudolf and his anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte ( Dissecting the Holocaust ).583

PreambleAccredited chemist Germar Rudolf has written me to request an

expert statement regarding an anthology titled Grundlagen zur Zeit- geschichte: Ein Handbuch über strittige Fragen des 20. Jahrhunderts

(Foundations on Contemporary History. A Handbook of Points at Issueof the 20th Century), edited by Ernst Gauss and published in 1994 byGrabert-Verlag in Tübingen, Germany. The foremost issue was to bethe question of the work’s scientific, i.e., academic nature, rather thanthe content per se.

As a historian specializing in recent and East European history, andon the basis of my decades of professional experience and practice in theacademic service of the Federal Republic of Germany, I am qualifiedand entitled to give an expert opinion on the matter in question.

583 Also published in E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 22), pp. 561-564.




372

Regarding my personal qualifications, I wish to state that I was amember of the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt (Military HistoryResearch Department) in Freiburg from 1960 to 1995. For almost three

decades, my work has focused exclusively on matters related to theGerman-Soviet war. Through the publication of academic books and periodical articles on this topic I am well established as an expert inmy field, both at home and abroad. Accredited chemist Rudolf and theco-authors of the anthology at issue are not personally known to me.

The Formal AspectAs pointed out in the anthology in question, the book does not of-

fer a comprehensive overview of the course of the National Socialist persecution of the Jews during World War Two. Rather, the focus is onspecific individual topics regarding disputed and controversial aspectsof killings of the Jews. The various contributions to the book are ex- pertly written in a predominantly investigative style. Where detail andcompleteness are concerned, the body of supporting and documentingreferences leaves little to be desired and is extremely helpful to areader seeking further information, not least of all since sources fromthe opposing subject literature are also cited without reservation. It appears, therefore, that this anthology is part of the large-scale academicdispute over a serious contemporary issue which reaches far beyond itsactual academic scope and into the political realm.

The individual contributions to this anthology are logically consis-tent and objectively descriptive in structure, even though at times a polemical note does become evident—as is perhaps inevitable in suchemotionally charged topics, and as is also quite common in politicaland historical controversies. In any case, a striving for new understand-

ing is tangibly apparent throughout the book. From this perspective,therefore, the anthology cannot be denied an academic character, par-ticularly if one compares it with many a publication from its opposingside, whose academic nature is also never questioned. There is much inthe various contributions that strikes one as thoroughly convincing.Much else may be merely noted with objective interest. Elsewhere,doubts and criticisms also come to mind. The issue may perhaps besimplified by pointing out that what we are dealing with in this great

controversy is a rather more accusatory style of literature on the onehand, and a rather more apologetic one on the other. This is to suggest




373

that in the heat of controversy, both sides may be overly inclined toovershoot the mark and to leave the solid ground of provable facts be-hind. One might perhaps summarize by saying that the time for conclu-

sive declarations regarding the great persecution of the Jews has notyet come.

The Problem of Self-EvidentnessThere can be no doubt about the fact that genocide was committed

against the Jewish people by the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Policeand the SD and by the SS personnel in charge in the concentrationcamps in the former General Government of Poland. Hitler, Himmler

and Dr. Goebbels clearly admitted these misdeeds on several occa-sions. The anthology’s editor, Ernst Gauss, also considers this as givenin his chapter. And in fact, the genocide provides an unspoken back-drop for the anthology at issue. To rule out any misunderstanding, itwould perhaps have been better to spell these things out unambigu-ously and to clarify that an academic controversy today can no longer dispute the mass killings per se, but rather only the numbers of victimsand the methods of murder. In this respect, we admittedly may expectto see far-reaching modifications as yet. In this context as well, therather overused concept of self-evidentness is in need of limitation, or at least of a more precise definition.

Two Important ExamplesWe shall give two especially significant examples of this.1) From 1945 to 1990, the figure of 4 million victims in Ausch-

witz was considered self-evident and was accorded judicial notice inthe Federal German courts. But where did this figure come from? It

originated with Soviet war propaganda. On March 1, 1945, an officialSoviet announcement stated for the first time that “at least five million

people were exterminated ” in Auschwitz. This figure was then reducedto four million in the official Soviet communiqué of May 7, 1945. Thisnumber of 4 million victims—put about by Soviet war propaganda, inother words by the NKVD, and in no way proven by any evidencewhatsoever—was adopted by the public in western countries, and per-sisted unchanged until 1990, when it was officially reduced to 1.5 mil-

lion virtually overnight. Currently the number of Auschwitz victims isset at a remaining 631,000 to 711,000, and a further reduction has not




374

been ruled out.2) To this day the total number of Jewish victims is generally

given as 6 million. According to the current opinion of the German

experts on contemporary history, this figure was first provided to theAmericans by SS Sturmbannführer Dr. Hoettl in spring 1945, and repeated at the IMT in Nuremberg on November 26, 1945. It must benoted, however, that this selfsame figure was demonstrably first putforth in the foreign press as early as January 4, 1945, several weeks prior to the January 27, 1945 liberation of the Auschwitz concentrationcamp (with its alleged 4 million victims)—put about by none other than the infamous Soviet Minister of Propaganda, Ilya Ehrenburg.Thus it was Ehrenburg who came up with the figure of six million. [cf.Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945, 5th ed., Her- big, Munich 1999, pp. 182ff.; Engl.: Stalin’s War of Extermination1941-1945, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001, pp.189f.]

Regarding Ehrenburg himself, it must be mentioned that in 1941Stalin had given him the general order to incite a boundless nationaland racial hatred against all Germans. Ehrenburg’s years-long unbri-dled frenzies of hatred culminated in his call to “ put an end to Ger-

many” and in an effort which he described as “modest and honorable”,namely “to reduce the popula-tion of Germany”, towards whichend the only thing left to decidewas whether it would be better “to kill the Germans with axes or with clubs”.

Both examples show that

new evidence can immediatelyoverthrow something that is al-legedly self-evident, and, accord-ingly, it is the duty of any con-temporary historian to call alleg-edly conclusive findings intoquestion. Even in matters involv-ing grave charges, the principle

of self-evidentness has beenknown to become invalidated.As an example one need only Dr. Joachim Hoffmann




375

consider the claim (widely accepted in Germany in particular, but nowdenied by Yad Vashem itself) that the Germans had manufactured soapfrom the bodies of murdered Jews—a fabrication that also goes back to

Soviet war propaganda. Therefore, the anthology at issue here does notcommit anything unlawful, but rather engages in a justified and neces-sary pursuit in its attempt to critically examine allegedly self-evidentissues on the basis of new evidence or findings, as it is in fact the natu-ral task of historiography to do.

The Problem of Eyewitness TestimonySeveral contributions to this anthology point out, and rightly so,

that the testimony of eyewitnesses is unreliable; these contributions back their claims with numerous examples, some of which are indeedtruly grotesque. Such experiences certainly agree with those of other historians of the Second World War. This is not to say that eyewitnessstatements are entirely superfluous, but practical experience definitelyhas shown that they must always be examined and corroborated withauthentic documents. My personal experience has been that as early as1970 eyewitness testimony about details of the events of the war wasso unreliable that it would have been a breach of professional duties to base a historical treatise on them alone.

Benz’s AnthologyOn the whole, the contributions to the anthology here at issue fre-

quently manifest a profound understanding of the subject and its asso-ciated literature, even though some suggestions made do appear ques-tionable at times. However, the Establishment literature about theHolocaust also often contains factual errors. One example in this con-

text is Benz’s 1991 anthology Dimension des Völkermords, which dis- plays a downright disarming ignorance of the state of affairs on theSoviet side. The authors of the Gauss anthology object, and correctlyso, that Benz bases his studies uncritically on the announcements made by Soviet war propaganda and on the publications about Soviet showtrials. The anthology edited by Benz attempts, by means of elaboratestatistical minutiae, to prove the correctness of the six-million figure.Anyone who has worked with demographic statistics knows what seri-

ous errors can enter into such complex analyses even under a strictlyobjective agenda. Benz is entirely unaware that Ehrenburg had already




376

introduced the six-million figure into the annals of war propaganda onJanuary 4, 1945. Thus, he will have to accept the charge that, thoughunwittingly, he has really only worked to confirm a propaganda figure

of Ehrenburg’s. From this perspective, his and his co-authors’ researchfindings offer a foothold for fundamental criticism.

Babi Yar The mass execution of Jewish inhabitants of Kyiv, known as the

massacre of Babi Yar, is also subjected to justified and necessary criti-cism in the anthology here at issue. Over time, the actions of Einsatz-kommando 4a of the Security Police and the SD under Blobel have

experienced propagandistic inflation to the point where restoring theactual facts to their real dimensions is an obligation for anyone strivingfor historical veracity. Of course this does not impinge on the fact thatthousands of Jews were killed in Kyiv.

Overall ImpressionThe overall impression evoked by this anthology edited by Gauss

is that its contents must be acknowledged—with critical common

sense, of course—no less than is always undisputedly and unrestrict-edly done with the ‘official’ literature about the Holocaust. The principle of audiatur et altera pars [let the other side be heard] must apply inthis case as well! A suppression of this carefully documented work would represent a forcible obstruction of the legitimate striving for scientific and academic understanding. The state of knowledge is never static. Experience has shown that exaggerations and errors alwaysgrind themselves down in the course of a normal academic contro-versy. One must not deny a mature and free researcher and reader his

ability to exercise his critical faculties. It would then be only a smallstep from suppressing unpopular books, to burning them; and then,though with different motivations, we would be right back where theentire misfortune began.

ConclusionAs historian officially commissioned by the Militärgeschichtliche

Forschungsamt I have spent two-and-a-half decades studying the So-

viet military literature about the history of the Red Army and the Sec-ond World War in its original documentary texts—an endless chain of




377

misrepresentations, fabrications, distortions and slander. But even thishistorical literature turned up the occasional truths. I could not havecarried out my academic duties if I had rejected the Soviet publications

out-of-hand as being unacademic. The same goes infinitely more for the anthology here at issue, which is on a respectable academic leveland which doubtless contributes much to our understanding of aspectsof the war, despite any reservations one may have.

[sgd.] Dr. J. Hoffmann, Acad. Director (retired)[written on September 28, 1995]

On June 15, 1996, judge Burkhardt Stein from Tübingen CountyCourt ordered the confiscation and incineration of all books Grundla- gen zur Zeitgeschichte and all means for its manufacturing (Ref. 4 Gs173/95). The expert reports presented by the defense were ignored.

11.4.3. More Thought Crimes…

Since I fled my home country in early 1996, many more criminal prosecutions were started for publications I authored, edited, pub-lished, or distributed, and keep authoring, editing, publishing, and dis-tributing. The following list contains cases where such proceedingscame to my knowledge. Since distributing literature banned by theGerman Federal Review Office for Youth-Endangering Publications( Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften) is a criminal of-fense in Germany, and each confiscation of literature by a German

court is accompanied automatically by criminal prosecution againstthose who authored, edited, published, distributed, printed, imported,exported, stored or otherwise made available the confiscated literature,each of the following cases is considered to be a crime under the toughGerman thought crime legislation. One must therefore assume thateach of the following cases may result in at least one criminal proceed-ing against me. Finally, I have added a list of works published by mefor which it is unknown if any criminal proceedings were started. Since

the content of these publications is comparable to the other publica-tions listed here, it must be expected that in any of these cases criminalinvestigations have been or will be started.




378

1. In 1994, the State Prosecution Office of Böblingen confiscated thefollowing books written by Germar Rudolf. It is likely that Ru-dolf’s ongoing distribution of these publications since 1994—both

in printed form as well as online—led to further criminal proceed-ings against him (County Court Böblingen, 9 Gs 521/94): – Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (ed.), Wissenschaftlicher Erd-

rutsch durch das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell Press, London1993.

– Manfred Köhler, Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte: Auch Holocaust-Lügenhaben kurze Beine, Cromwell Press, London 1994.584

– Wilhelm Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf , Cromwell Press, Brighton1994.585

2. In 1996, the County Court Munich ordered the confiscation anddestruction of the issue 6/1995 of the periodical Staatsbriefe, (Cas-tel del Monte, Munich), because of an article authored by Germar Rudolf (County Court Munich, 8440 Ds 112 Js 10161/96)586

3. In 1996, the County Court Berlin Tiergarten ordered the confisca-tion and destruction of the issues 2 and 3/1995 of the periodicalSleipnir , (Castel del Monte, Munich), because of an article au-thored by Germar Rudolf (County Court Berlin-Tiergarten, 271 Ds

155/96)587 4. During a search of his property in March 1997, the Judge Dr.

Payer of County Court Böblingen orders the search of a GermanPO Box used by Germar Rudolf, and its formal owner, because of a prosecution launched against Germar Rudolf for disseminatingrevisionist literature via the Internet address www.codoh.com,where this PO Box is given as a contact address (County CourtBöblingen, ref. 9(8) Gs 228/97).

5. In 1997, the County Court Weinheim ordered the confiscation and

584 Online: www.vho.org/D/Nolte; no Engl. version available.585 Online: www.vho.org/D/dfr; Engl.: www.vho.org/GB/Books/trc586 “ Naht ein deutscher Bürgerkrieg?”, Staatsbriefe 6(6) (1995), pp. 6-8, online German only:

www.vho.org/D/Staatsbriefe/Rudolf6_6.html.587 G. Rudolf and J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, “ Briefwechsel ”, Sleipnir , 1(3) (1995) pp.

29-33; online: www.vho.org/D/Kardinal/LeuchterR.html; Engl.:www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html; G. Rudolf, “ Kein Brief ins Gefängnis?”, Sleipnir 1(2) (1995), not online. The criminal investigation against me in that case, Public Attorney’s

Office I in the District Court of Berlin, ref. 81 Js 1385/95, was dropped on March 21, 1996,under sec. 154 German Penal Procedure Rules (StPO), because the expected punishment“would not carry much weight ” in comparison to the one expected from the District Court of Stuttgart in my first “thought crime” trial.




379

destruction of the book formally edited by Herbert Verbeke, butfactually written and published by Germar Rudolf, Kardinalfragen

zur Zeitgeschichte (Cardinal Questions of Contemporary History),

Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1996 (County Court Wein-heim, ref. 2 Ds 11 Js 5428/97)588 6. In 1997, the County Court Böblingen ordered the confiscation and

destruction of the book edited by Rüdiger Kammerer, ArminSolms, and authored by Germar Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten,Cromwell Press, London 1993 (County Court Böblingen, ref. 9(8)Gs 228/97)589

7. In 1997, the County Court Böblingen ordered the confiscation anddestruction of the book formally edited by Herbert Verbeke, butfactually edited and co-authored by Germar Rudolf under the pennames Ernst Gauss and Manfred Köhler, Auschwitz: Nackte Fak-ten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1996 (County CourtBöblingen, ref. 9(8) Gs 228/97).590 On April 8, 1999, the GermanFederal Review Office for Youth-Endangering Publications putthis book on its list of prohibited literature ( Bundesanzeiger No.81, April 30, 1999)

8. On December 2, 1997, the German Federal Review Office for

Youth-Endangering Publications informs the publisher of the journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (Quarterlyfor free Historical Research), formally Herbert Verbeke, but factu-ally Germar Rudolf, that it is going to put the issues one and twoof the year 1997 on its list of prohibited literature.591

9. On May 12, 1998, the German Federal Review Office for Youth-Endangering Publications informs the formally responsible per-sons of the website www.vho.org, Herbert Verbeke, but factually

and since summer 1998 even formally Germar Rudolf, that it isgoing to put the entire content of this website on its list of prohib-ited literature. (Ref. No. BPjS, Pr. 273/98 UK/Schm)592

10. On August 25, 1998, the Office of State Prosecution in Munich Iinforms the publisher of the journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie

588 Online: www.vho.org/D/Kardinal; Engl.: www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq589 Online: www.vho.org/D/rga; Engl.: to be posted soon at www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr.590

Online: www.vho.org/D/anf; Engl.: www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf 591 Online: www.vho.org/VffG/1997/1/1_97.html and www.vho.org/VffG/1997/2/2_97.html(German).

592 See the transcript of this document at www.vho.org/censor/BPjS_vho.html (German).




381

14. On April 19, 2000, the police of Baden-Württemberg confiscatedand destroyed all copies available of the book Vorlesungen über

Zeitgeschichte (Lectures on Contemporary History), authored by

Germar Rudolf under the pen name Ernst Gauss, as ordered by theCounty Court Tübingen (County Court Tübingen, ref. 4 Gs312/2000).599

15. Criminal investigation so far unknown, but most likely: J. Graf, C.Mattogno, Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof und seine Funktion inder nationalsozialistischen Judenpolitik , Castle Hill Publishers,Hastings 1999.600

16. Criminal investigation so far unknown, but most likely: J. Graf, Riese auf tönernen Füßen. Raul Hilberg und sein Standardwerk über den “Holocaust”, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 1999.601

17. Criminal investigation so far unknown, but most likely: Viertel- jahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (Quarterly for free His-torical Research), all issues since 3/1998 (four each year).602

18. Criminal investigation so far unknown, but most likely: ErnstGauss (ed.) (i.e., Germar Rudolf), Dissecting the Holocaust. TheGrowing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’ , Theses & Disserta-tions Press, Capshaw 2000.597

19. In August 2002, a customer of mine made me aware of the factthat criminal proceedings were started against him because he hadordered ten copies of the German version of this book, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2001.603 This meansthat distributing this book in Germany is considered a crime, so acriminal investigation must have been started against me becauseof this book.

20. Criminal investigation so far unknown, but most likely: C.

Mattogno, J. Graf, Treblinka. Durchgangslager oder Vernichtungslager? (Treblinka. Transit Camp or ExterminationCamp?), Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2002.604 Each of these crimes, which are doubtlessly covered by the First

Amendment of the US Constitution, can be punished with up to five

599 Online: www.vho.org/D/vuez (German only).600 Online: www.vho.org/D/Stutthof/index.html.601

Online: www.vho.org/D/Riese/index.html.602 Cf. online: www.vho.org/VffG/index.html.603 Online: www.vho.org/D/rga2/index.html.604 Online: www.vho.org/D/Treblinka/index.html.




382

years in prison in Germany. Would I surrender to the German authori-ties, I might well face some 10 years in prison for my entirely and ac-knowledged scientific writings and for my internet fight against Ger-

man censorship, to which I have devoted parts of my websitewww.vho.org, which offers all the literature banned and confiscated byGerman authorities, as long as it does not promote pornography or vio-lence.605

605 See online: www.vho.org/censor.




383

11.5. The Media and the Case of Germar Rudolf

The Object of Zeal606 When in spring 1992 Germar Rudolf sent out the first draft of his

“ Expert Report on the Formation and Detectability of Cyanide Com- pounds in the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz” to a narrow circle of re-cipients in science and politics, several historians responded with inter-est. The media, however, received no notice of the existence of the report. Only in spring 1993, when retired Major General Otto Ernst

Remer took a later draft of the expert report, provided it with a peppery political preface, and then sent some 1,000 to 2,000 copies to the me-dia, public attorneys, politicians, and scientists, did a certain circle of the Establishment learn of the existence of this report.

The press was quiet, except for two short articles that appeared onMay 8/9 and 13, 1993, in the Wiesbadener Kurier reporting on the em- barrassment the expert report had caused to the chemical analysis Insti-tute Fresenius hired by Rudolf, located in Taunusstein near Wiesbaden,

and an announcement in the Märkische Allgemeinen of May 14, 1993,that a certain Prof. L. Bisky had filed a criminal complaint. Finally, inspring 1994, when the Labor Court heard the case between Rudolf andhis former employer, the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Researchat Stuttgart, which ended with a compromise, the dpa (German PressAgency) issued a press release that appeared in many newspapers andeven on the radio. That prompted the ARD (German Public Broadcast-ing) television program Report to make a witch-hunt broadcast.

In the regional press of the Stuttgart area, where Rudolf resided atthat time, there appeared mostly factual police notices, reporting thatthe State Security Department of the Criminal Police of Baden-Württemberg607 for various reasons had ordered house-searches (Sep-

606 Appeared in Staatsbriefe 2-3/1996, Verlag Castel del Monte, Postfach 14 06 28, 80456 Mu-

nich, pp. 23-30.607 The uninitiated reader may be unaware that in Germany there is a division of the Criminal

Police called the State Security Department which prosecutes politically motivated crimes.

This department, by far the largest of the criminal offices, has separate areas for right-wingextremist, left-wing extremist, and foreign-influenced political crimes, respectively. Thoseemployed in one department tend to have a political opinion hostile to their target group. For example, those in the right-wing extremist department tend to have left-wing, anti-fascist ori-




384

tember 30, 1993,608 August 18, 1994,609 and March 27, 1995610). How-ever, the headlines were occasionally ridiculous. For example, theheadline “ Nazi book depot in Steinenbronn” appeared in the Böblinger

Boten of March 29, 1995. In fact, there were neither Nazis, Nazi mate-rial nor a book depot in Rudolf’s home.The authorized version of the expert report was published in

summer 1993 in Great Britain with the title Das Rudolf Gutachten andhas been distributed and sold in Germany since then.611 There has beenno echo about this version in the media.

The media showed increased interest, when the 17th State SecurityChamber of the Stuttgart District Court began the criminal investiga-tion against me on account of suspicion of participation in the prepara-tion and distribution of Remer’s commented version of my report.However, they were not interested in the Expert Report nor in me, butmerely in the question, whether there should be made an example “to

punish the right-wing ” for reasons of public instruction.The trial proceedings did not center upon the actual contents of my

expert report, but on Remer’s political commentary and my (alleged) political views. This was despite the fact that prosecutions for dissent-ing political views are forbidden according to the German constitution

(cf. article 3.3. of the German Basic law). They have a strong tendencyto turn into show-trials, and this is exactly what happened in this case.

Later on, several of the media reports that were published in thecourse of the hubbub over the Rudolf expert report and its author at-tempted to critically evaluate how true—or rather how false—this expert report was.

On March 28, 1994, the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG, M.-P.-Corporation), umbrella organization of some 200 Max-Planck-Insti-

tutes all over Germany and Austria—I had been a PhD student at one

entations. In addition, the German Federal court system includes State Security Chamberswhose only work is to punish politically motivated crimes. The prosecutors who work in thesecourts were politically trained to deal with such crimes.

608 This house search concerned the commented version of my expert report distributed byRemer.

609 This house search was due to suspicion of participation in the production and distribution of the newsletters Remer Depesche and Deutschland Report . (Seehttp://www.nationaljournal.org)

610

This house search concerned the revisionist anthology edited by my under the pseudonymErnst Gauss entitled Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. op. cit. (note 43); Engl.: Dissecting the Holocaust , op. cit. (note 22).

611 R. Kammerer, A. Solms (ed.), op. cit. (note 43).




385

of them—issued a press release on my expert report. They reported oninternal measures taken by my former employer, the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, against me. The MPG

made it clear that since they agreed with the German Federal Constitu-tional Court and the Federal Supreme Court as to the commonlyknown fact of the Holocaust, they would not involve themselves in thediscussion of the issues raised by my expert report.

The Expert Opinion of the dpa – Invented from WholeCloth

The news release of the dpa Press Bureau Stuttgart which ap-

peared the following day in almost all German newspapers and also onthe radio contained the following passage: 612

“According to their spokesman, the Max-Planck-Corporation hasno proof that the samples are really from Auschwitz. Even if they are

from there, according to expert opinion, it is certainly no wonder that notraces of hydrogen cyanide were found, because cyanide compounds dis-integrate quickly. In earth this takes six to eight weeks and in stone theycan only be preserved by “absolute conservation conditions, including complete exclusion of air and bacteria”.

Of course, the Max-Planck-Corporation had no evidence about theorigin of the samples, since they did not ask me for any and I had noreason to give them any without having been asked. This is nothingelse but a clumsy diversion from the main question. And by the way: if this topic is important to anybody, no one is prevented from verifyingthe results of my expert report and the test results of others as dis-cussed in chapter 8.

On inquiry about the supposed expert opinion about the instabilityof cyanide compounds, Albert Meinecke, the person at dpa apparentlyresponsible for the notice, referred first to the press statement from theMPG.613 After it was shown to Meinecke that the statement containedno comment on the factual content of the expert report, nor any com-ment on the stability or presence of cyanide compounds,612 he madevarious claims, depending on the caller and the time of the call:

612 Daily newspapers, such as Süddeutsche Zeitung , Stuttgarter Zeitung , Südwestpresse-Verbund (March 29, 1994), taz, Frankfurter Rundschau (March 30, 1994).

613 Telephone conversation of K. Philipp, Frankfurt/Main, March 30, 1994.




386

a) He did not have the source for the expert opinion at hand.612,614 b) He did not know who was responsible for the press notice.613 c) The person responsible for the notice was out of the office.613

d) The person responsible for the notice was possibly on vacation.613

e) Since Meinecke had said both b) and c) in the same conversation,he was confronted with the fact that he had contradicted himself and that he must know very well who the responsible party was if he could say the person was not in the office. When asked if hehad not made a great pile of goat-dung with his press notice, heopined that no one was without fault.613

f) He would call Rudolf when he knew more about who was respon-sible and what the source was.613 As of January 2003, this has stillnot happened.The connection between the MPG and the unnamed expert opinion

created by the phraseology of the dpa notice would suggest to thereader that the expert opinion was that of the MPG. The latter declared by fax on April 12, 1994, that this was not the case and that the claimin the dpa notice was mistaken.

After two weeks of silence, on April 13, 1994, dpa Editor-in-Chief D. Ebeling of Hamburg, speaking for the agency, announced in a fax

message to me that the unnamed expert would remain unnamed to pro-tect his privacy. Two days later, in an unsigned faxed notice, A.Meinecke denied my accusation of falsehood615 and referred me to theEditor-in-Chief in Hamburg.

The Technical IssuesAmong others, the dpa notice contained the following assertion:

“Even if they [the samples] are from there [Auschwitz] , according to expert opinion, it is certainly no wonder that no traces of hydrogencyanide were found, because cyanide compounds disintegrate quickly.”

Evidently the writer of these lines does not know the difference between hydrogen cyanide and cyanide compounds. If he should wishto subsume cyanide compounds under hydrogen cyanide, which mightmake it easier for the layman to understand, then it is clear: This sen-tence and the following one discuss the stability of cyanide com-

614 Telephone conversation of G. Rudolf, Jettingen, March 30, 1994.615 Press release, G. Rudolf on April 8, 1994.




387

pounds, the only thing that makes sense with respect to the Rudolf Re- port. The question as to the stability of hydrogen cyanide itself, asraised by Ebeling in his fax to me, is of no concern to anyone616 —the

question is a useless diversion from the subject.The supposed statements of the unknown expert assert that cya-nide compounds disintegrate quickly. This blanket claim is and willalways be untenable and shameful for any expert to make. As proof for this, the reader may simply go back to chapter 6.6. of this book, andthere in particular to chapter 6.6.5. (page 177).

Ebeling’s assertions that stable compounds may form but do notnecessarily form615 needs no confirmation from competent authority,since the fact that every acid in the world forms stable as well as un-stable compounds is as trivial as an ‘Amen’ in church.

In the dpa notice it was stated that cyanide compounds will last instone only under “absolute conservation conditions”, but in contrast tothat, in the masonry of the cases of interest here and investigated indetail in this report, the disinfestation chambers of Auschwitz, hydro-gen cyanide formed extremely long-lasting iron cyanide compounds of the Iron Blue type. See the arguments given above for proof of this.

Wrong is therefore not only the claim of the dpa press release that

this statement stemmed from an expert, but the actual content of thisrelease is absolutely untenable. No expert would have endorsed such aembarrassingly absurd statement. It is not hard to see why the personresponsible for having released this article did not want to be named,as Herr Ebeling said.

Report Portrait: Incitement to HatredOne of the main incidents of the witch-hunt against Germar Ru-

dolf was the left-wing Report broadcast of the German public TV sta-tion ARD on April 11, 1994. In the footage by Stefan Rocker, every-one from Conservative to neo-Nazi personalities, including Germar Rudolf, were thrown all together into one pot. By this sort of undiffer-entiated reporting, one can produce in certain sectors of the German population a pogrom mood against everything which is or might beright-wing. Report showed pictures of a synagogue in Lübeck whichhad been fire-bombed just a few months before, using the words, that

as soon as Auschwitz denial would boom again, synagogues would be616 D. Ebeling’s response to numerous queries to the Stuttgarter dpa bureau, April 13, 1994.




388

burning. The next picture shown in this footage was that of Germar Rudolf on his way to the Labor Court in Stuttgart. Thereby, Herr Ru-dolf was made into a sort of paper accomplice of the Lübeck arson.

This was strengthened by the commentator’s choice of words, when hementioned the title of the well-known play Biedermann und die Brand- stifter (Everyman and the Arsonist).617

If that does not constitute criminal incitement of the German tele-vision-viewing audience against Germar Rudolf, what would? It goeswithout saying that reports of this kind are loaded with pictures of con-centration camps, deported Jews, and a sea of corpses in order to ridi-cule the supposed denial claim of a Germar Rudolf. This is the way theleft-wing Report works.

But which viewer would know that Rudolf had not only not de-nied, but had actually denounced the frequent injustices that did oc-curred at that time?618 And who would notice that the pictures provednothing except that thousands in the concentration camps died fromsickness and malnutrition? Who noticed that no TV program ever showed a film or a picture of a ‘gas chamber’ either in operation or capable of being put into operation—the only point in which Germar Rudolf holds a different viewpoint from media outfits such as Report ?

Report spewed falsehoods and lies into the world. One of themwas seized upon by Franziska Hundseder in her book Rechte machen

Kasse (Righ-wingers Cash In) and will be dealt with in the next sec-tion. Here I will discuss another:619

In the appendix of his expert report under the heading Danksa- gung (Acknowledgements), Rudolf had thanked a number of personsand institutions who had helped him in many ways in the collection of data or sources, the recovery and analysis of samples, or for any assis-

tance in the production of the report. Among these were the firmsDEGUSSA AG and Institute Fresenius, since the first had suppliedimportant technical data on the stability of Iron Blue and the secondhad analyzed most of the samples in Rudolf’s presence and initiallywith his help. Such acknowledgements are usual in scientific publica- 617 In the referenced book by Max Frisch, Herr Biedermann played just the opposite role of a

paper criminal, he was the victim of a criminal (and his own gullibility). But this fact was notmade clear to the viewer.

618

Cf. E. Gauss (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust , op. cit.. (note 22), pp. 31-34.619 There is a detailed discussion of this broadcast in: W. Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf , op. cit. (note 91); there Rudolf disputes that he hid behind the pseudonym Ernst Gauss. He had admit-ted that in the trial in the District Court of Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94.




389

tions—also they are polite.In their commentary, Report reproached Rudolf that he had used

the names of well-known institutes and firms to give his report the ap-

pearance of competence. In view of the facts just given, this reproachis both malevolent and ridiculous. Report ’s additional assertion that acriminal complaint for fraud had been filed against Rudolf due to thismisuse of well-known names, was pure invention. Up to today, Janu-ary 2003, there have been no criminal complaints from any of the per-sons or institutions directly or indirectly involved in the production of the report. Report ’s false accusation was a direct smear.

Stefan Rocker also participated in an ARD-Tagesthemen news broadcast on June 6, 1996, covering the book-burning trial of the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte,620 edited by Rudolf, then before theCounty Court of Tübingen. A written version of this piece appeared in

FAZ ( Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ) of June 10, 1996, p. 14. It be-gan with the following sentence:

“Everyman and the Arsonist: diplom chemist German[621] Rudolf,31, was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment by the Stuttgart District Court a year ago for incitement to racial hatred and denial of the holo-caust.”

Rudolf was also accused of having published a “ pseudo-scientific”“hack-job” titled Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, whereby he had proven himself a repetitious right-wing extremist offender. It wasstated he had left the country and was sought by the police.

The fact that 100 academics had placed an advertisement in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung during the book-burning trial622 whichcriticized the use of censorship and the violation of civil rights byGerman courts was termed a “ frontal assault on the Federal German

justice system” in this commentary. Throughout that piece, the authorsthrew everyone who was politically right-of-center into one big brown bucket.

Ripple EffectsIn mid-May 1995, the left-wing political TV show Panorama

(again from the German public station ARD) reported on several me-

620 Cf. chapter 11.4.2. in this volume.621 Should be: Germar. Error in Original.622 Cf. “ About true and false Perceptions” (www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/percept.html).




390

dium-size businesses that had become known as supporters of right-wing circles.623 This broadcast was a cinematic presentation of the book Rechte machen Kasse,624 (Right-Wingers Cash In) written by the

journalist who produced the broadcast, Franziska Hundseder. In the book, the author discusses Germar Rudolf or his expert report twice.Both times her discussion is full of errors and falsehoods.

For example, in referring to the invented dpa press release aboutthe alleged instability of cyanide compounds, Frau Hundseder con-cludes:

“Therefore, this so-called expert report of Herr Rudolf—like the expert report of Frederick A. Leuchter, which similarly found no traces of

cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria 1 and 2— contains no proof of anything other than the methods by which right-wing extremists conduct historical research.”

Though notified in writing about the falsity of the dpa press re-lease she was relying upon, Frau Hundseder never changed her posi-tion on this. The same is true for a passage on page 212 of her book,where she claims I had tried to collect several tens of thousands of deutschmarks in order to buy copies of the death books of the Ausch-

witz camp. She gives the impression that I was trying to get the money.But this is not true. The letter quoted by her had already been distort-edly quoted by the above mentioned Report journalists who must haveillegally received a complete copy of this letter from the trial record.However, if read completely, the letter reveals that I did not want anymoney, but was asking several personalities to donate money to a third person I had no personal connection with.

The Verdict a Foregone ConclusionAs the trial against Germar Rudolf in the State Security Chamber

of the District Court of Stuttgart began at the end of November 1994,there were several media individuals who distinguished themselves bytheir painful ignorance of the subject matter of the trial. The cause for this seemed to be that no journalist deemed it necessary to ask for in-

623 Cf. Die Welt , May 15, 1995: “Unterstützen Unternehmer die rechtsextremen Szene?” (Do

Businesses Support the Right-wing Extremist Scene?). As a result of this broadcast, Germar Rudolf’s employer was placed under such pressure from his customers, suppliers, competitors,and employees that he terminated Herr Rudolf’s employment contract.

624 Knaur, Munich, May 1995.




391

formation from anyone involved in the trial. So it happened that repeatedly items were misunderstood or misreported. One might not at-tribute purposeful distortion to the journalists if it were not for the fact

that these misunderstandings were always decidedly unfavorable toRudolf.The partisan orientation of the Süddeutscher Rundfunk , SDR, an-

other public broadcasting station (almost all German public broadcast-ing stations are left-wing oriented) was exposed when it decided toreport only one side of the story, namely that of the investigating po-lice officer.

Since his statements were apparently not critical enough for theSDR, soon items were invented. The SDR took the only two statementsfrom the several hundred pages of correspondence in which Rudolf hadmentioned two Jewish personalities in a disapproving way, which werecited by the police officer. SDR then asserted falsely, the officer hadcharacterized the rest of my correspondence “as the vilest incitement and defamation”. The SDR also attributed to the police officer that hehad understood Rudolf to have said he wanted to “rewrite the historyof Germany from 1871 onward, without the Holocaust or World War

II ”, which in view of the absurdity of the statement may cause doubt

about the sanity of the journalists involved. And of course, the SDR was silent on the substantial mitigating evidence presented by the de-fense in the following months.625

With a few exceptions, the entire media was silent until the end of the trial. It could be seen from the behavior of the journalists presentthat they were not looking for the real story, but were intent on bring-ing in a sacrifice for the Zeitgeist : all but one of them—a new personfrom Südwestfunk radio—resorted only to the prosecuting attorneys

and judges in their search for information.The Stuttgarter Zeitung (StZ ) provides a clear example of the ten-

dentious method of reporting used by the media. Since not enough in-criminating material turned up in the several thousand pages of Ru-dolf’s correspondence that were found in the first house search in Sep-tember 1993, on January 27, 1995, the StZ conjured up “writing in thehand of the accused with indisputable [...] xenophobic content ”. How-ever, in the whole trial there was never any talk of xenophobia or ra-

cism, because there was never any basis for same. At the end of a piece625 Süddeutscher Rundfunk , in all four afternoon radio programs on Nov. 25, 1994.




392

of the Landesschau of Südwest 3 TV station on December 27, 1994,the Christian-Conservative Rudolf mutated into a neo-Nazi: the trialagainst Rudolf was characterized as another case of a neo-Nazi in the

Stuttgart District Court, following a real trial against several NationalSocialists that had taken place in the same court a short time before. 626 That the verdict was assumed to have been decided before the fact

became more and more noticeable as the question was raised whether there would be difficulties in convicting Rudolf of the crime he wasaccused of, as if it were not the task of the court to determine the truthwithout respect to party, but rather that it should find guilt whether or not the crime had been committed.

The Böblinger Kreiszeitung reported in this vein on May 10, 1995,as the trial was nearing its end. There, on page 13 under the headline“Sentence Before Pentecost ”, one found:

“He [the presiding judge] believes that the prosecuting attorney will conclude her case at the next session on May 18 of this year, and that the

sentence against the chemist will be handed down before Pentecost unless something unforeseen happens.”

How can it be that, according to this press report, the presiding

judge can announce before the end of the trial (it ended on June 23,1995) that the expected judgment will be against the accused, that itwill be decided to his disadvantage? It would have made sense to statethat the judgment will be given in a case or about the accused. If the journalist here reported the presiding judge’s words correctly, thechoice of words shows the partisanship of the judge; otherwise itshows that of the journalist.

It is worthwhile to note the relative emphasis the media gave tothe pleadings of the prosecution as opposed to that of the defense. OnJune 13, 1995, the StZ reported the arguments of the public attorney ina detailed 3-column story on page 2, while the defense appearance wascovered the following day in a small single-column story which merelyrecapitulated the events of the trial and did not report any of the argu-ments of the accused.

To be fair, it should be mentioned that after the sentence camedown on June 24, 1995, Sonnhild Maier, the journalist for the StZ ,mentioned some of the defense arguments:

626 The video of this program distributed by the Süddeutscher Rundfunk was correspondinglylabeled with the caption “ Neo-Nazi”.




393

“The court ruled that the expert report and the preface were a single work and were to be seen as a ‘common production’ of Rudolf and Remer.

This is what the accused chemist vehemently disputed. He is a prac-ticing Catholic, believes in the political order of the Federal Republicand would never have entered into an association with Remer, whom hetook to be a ‘living political fossil’. In the chemist’s words: ‘I would not have been so stupid—this would have undermined me in the final phaseof my doctoral program’.[627] At the time he was preparing his doctoral thesis at the Max-Planck-Institute in Stuttgart. When his expert report became publicly known, he lost his job.”

In a 3-column story on June 14, 1995, the Stuttgarter Nachrichten

summarized the prosecution case. The story gave the defense’s claimsresponding to the prosecution’s points, but not a single argument supporting these claims. Instead of this, the defense arguments were super-ficially refuted by the journalist Frank Schwaibold using somewhaterroneous counterarguments.

Against the assertion of the prosecution that Rudolf had revealedhimself as a politically motivated criminal by his work under the pseu-donym Ernst Gauss and therefore deserved no probation, the defense

objected that the Gauss case could not be applied. It was hidden fromthe reader that in a state under the rule of law an accused can not bedisadvantaged through a court case that had not even started. In re-sponse to the defense counterargument to the prosecution charge thatRudolf cooperated with Remer, journalist Frank Schwaibold assertedfalsely that Rudolf had met and talked with Remer three times. Thetruth is that Rudolf and Remer met only by chance in the course of Ru-dolf’s work as expert witness for Remer’s defense attorney. During

these accidental encounters, there was no conversation between them,which even the court acknowledged.628 Against the defense assertion that the accused was no neo-Nazi,

the journalist cited a letter absurdly out of context in which Rudolf “referred to the ‘Jew Republic Germany’ in context with the person Ignatz Bubis”. In that letter,629 Rudolf criticized a proposal made in spring

627 Because of the Remer’s commented version, the University of Stuttgart refused to give Rudolf

an appointment to take the rigorosum, the final examination for his PhD title.628 Confidential letter of G. Rudolf to H. Herrmann, Dec. 20, 1992, Computer Data File 2, sheet222, in records of the District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, introduced Dec. 6, 1994.

629 Letter to K. Philipp on March 1, 1993, Investigation File 1, sheet 351, in records of the Dis-




394

1993 that Ignatz Bubis be elected Federal German President. Takinginto consideration that Bubis had almost no political experience at thattime but had a criminal past, Rudolf commented that the proposal re-

flected the immense importance that was given to him as the leader of a diminishing minority in the German state (the late Ignatz Bubis washead of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland , Central Council of Jews in Germany, at that time). For that reason, Rudolf stated that itwas appropriate to rename the name of the German nation, using thisminority as a prefix: Judenrepublik Deutschland (Jew Republic of Germany).630 The Jewish witness Horst Lummert, who testified on be-half of Germar Rudolf, confirmed before the court on January 9, 1995,that this reasoning was justified.631

Given these facts, it remains for Frank Schwaibold to explain to uswhere neo-Nazism is hidden in Rudolf’s remarks.

Execution by Media Naturally, after the announcement of the sentence of the District

Court of Stuttgart, according to which Rudolf was to be punished with14 months imprisonment without probation, the media found it easy to

drag Germar Rudolf through the mud. The first was the Süddeutscher Rundfunk . Following the imperative of the Zeitgeist , without makinguse of the decision of the court or any other evidence, it labeled Rudolf a “neo-Nazi”. It also attempted to make the Rudolf expert report ridicu-lous by resurrecting the dpa notice from a year before. SDR 3 simplyclaimed that it was known to competent chemists that cyanide compounds disintegrate within a few weeks in rocks.632

The program Landesschau of the regional television station Süd-west 3 made comments similar to those of SDR 3, but piled even fur-

ther on the defamation by misrepresenting an article that appeared inthe Stuttgarter Nachrichten the week before. This article of June 14,

trict Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, introduced on Dec. 17, 1994.630 Response of G. Rudolf to accusation May 1994, introduced in trial before District Court Stutt-

gart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, on March 17, 1995 in chambers, in records.631 H. Lummert thinks that one should stay with the abbreviation for BRD: “ Bubisrepublik

Deutschland ” (Bubis Republic Germany). Approximately 30 witnesses testified that they hadnever heard Germar Rudolf make anti-Semitic remarks and that he had even protested against

their use. There was no contrary testimony. The media likewise ignored a speech at an aca-demic fraternity by Rudolf to students which was clearly pro-Jewish. On May 9, 1995, thecourt verified that the speech had taken place.

632 SDR 3, June 23, 1995, 13:30 hours.




395

1995, was entitled “Only a Victim of the ‘Father-figure of Neo- Nazism’?”. Under the Word “ Neo-Nazism,” a picture of the accusedwas shown. The question raised by this newspaper headline was

whether Rudolf had been a victim of O. E. Remer, who was identifiedas the “ Father-figure of Neo-Nazism”.In filming a copy of this article, the Südwestfunk bent the paper so

that the viewer would see only the words “ Father-figure of Neo- Nazism” over the photograph of Rudolf. The viewer would unavoid-ably receive the impression that the harsh sentence on Rudolf was a judicial determination that with Rudolf one was dealing with the fa-ther-figure of Neo-Nazism. It is difficult to imagine how media distor-tion could get any worse.

Many media sources considered the sentence handed down by thecourt as an insufficient condemnation of Rudolf, as can be seen fromseveral examples. On June 24, 1995, the Böblinger Bote wrote thatRudolf could be linked to National Socialist race doctrine. This complete fabrication is so absurd and so far from any reality that it wasnever an issue during the course of the trial, nor was it mentioned inthe court’s spoken opinion giving the basis for the written verdict. Un-fortunately, this did not hinder the court from inserting this unfounded

assertion into the written verdict for the sentence.633 On the same day, and despite Rudolf’s personal appeal, Frank

Schwaibold of the Stuttgarter Nachrichten could not help but onceagain misconstrue the contacts between Rudolf and Remer, in that hewrote, Rudolf had been “ provably in personal contact with Remer three times”, where the word “ personal ” imputed a relationship be-tween the two that had never existed.

On June 24, 1995, the Süddeutsche Zeitung outdid itself in ma-

nipulating the news. It wrote that Rudolf had occasionally been amember of the right-wing extremist Republican Party. But, in fact, Ru-dolf had been a member of the party at a time when it was not consid-ered “right-wing extremist ” and even important members of the semi-conservative Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) maintained contactswith members of the party. Whatever opinion the media and the Ger-

633 Verdict of the District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, pp. 15, 156ff. As evidence the court

used an unpublished writing of the accused. In it, Rudolf commented how the confirmation of revisionist theses might embarrass Jews. Records of the District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs83/94, Computer Data File 3, introduced on Jan. 26, 1995. Where there is racism in thesespeculative remarks is unclear.




396

man internal secret service, the Office for the Defense of the Constitu-tion (Verfassungsschutz) had after Rudolf left the party in summer 1991 cannot be taken as a criterion for the evaluation of Rudolf’s po-

litical views. Also, Rudolf was not on trial for his political beliefs,which, according to Article 3, Para. 3 of the German Basic Law cannever be cause for deprivation of rights. Finally, it is absurd to try toassociate the patriotic-conservative views of the Republicans with the National Socialist views of Remer, which was clearly the intention of the Süddeutsche Zeitung .

The Süddeutsche Zeitung also was the only one of Germany’s big-ger daily newspapers that again trotted out the fable of the supposedlylong-ago refuted Rudolf expert report, based on the dpa notice:

“According to information from competent chemists, hydrogen cya-nide compounds disintegrate within a few months from the effects of weather and are no longer detectable.”

With this perpetual falsehood, the point was made to every unini-tiated reader that the Rudolf expert report was the technically worthlesshack-job of an incompetent chemist. At the beginning of the trial on November 23, 1994, the Böblinger Bote had spread the same nonsense:

“According to expert opinion, no traces of cyanide can be found af-ter 50 years since they disintegrate quickly.”

In their report of 1997, p. 64, even the Bavarian Office for the Pro-tection of the Constitution ( Bayerisches Amt für Verfassungsschutz)has the nerve to repeat that nonsense.

In view of the supposedly proven pseudo-science in the Rudolf expert report, the newspapers avoided the words “expert report ” or printed them in quotation marks and also characterized it as a “hack-

job” (StZ , November 23, 1994). However, on that date, November 23,1994, the court declared that it did not consider itself competent to de-cide to what extent the expert report satisfied scientific criteria. Itavoided the issue of scientific evidence by attributing to Rudolf the preface and epilogue written by Remer’s friend in Remer’s version andsentenced Rudolf on that basis.

In a wider context, Hans Westra, Director of the Anne Frank Foundation in the Netherlands, has commented on the technical cor-

rectness of the Rudolf expert report. The Anne Frank Foundation isone of the most well-known of the institutions world-wide that occupythemselves with uncovering and documenting proofs of the Holocaust.




397

In response to the question of a journalist as to whether the scientificconclusions of the Rudolf expert report were correct, Hans Westra replied:634

“These scientific analyses are perfect. What one cannot determine ishow this Rudolf got them, how he obtained the samples.”

Certainly Mr. Westra could not restrain himself from castingdoubt on the authenticity of the samples, since established researchersseem to be able to find no other loop-hole in the scheme of argumentsin the Rudolf expert report.

News for Public InstructionThe day of the announcement of the sentence in the case of Ger-

mar Rudolf may be the only one in which the media outside the localregion reported on it. As mentioned above, the Süddeutsche Zeitung devoted an extensive story to the sentence.

Also, on June 23, 1995, the nationwide TV news show heute of the ZDF (German public Television 2) felt called on to write a shortstory reporting that the diplom chemist Germar Rudolf had been sen-tenced to 14 months imprisonment without probation on account of an

expert report on the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Since as the mediaoutside the local region had reported almost nothing on the case previ-ous to this, the normal television viewer would hardly know what to dowith this very brief piece of information. Therefore, the report canhave had only one purpose: It should be made clear to every potentialtechnical witness Republic-wide that those who voice views about theHolocaust complex that deviate from those officially allowed— however factually correct, reputable, scientific and perhaps even pro-

fessionally correct—will be thrown in jail without probation.The news reports of the local press on May 6, 1996, ran in thesame direction after my application for a revision of the verdict wasturned down by the German Federal Supreme Court. They hinted to thereader that the scientist Rudolf had been sentenced because of his expert report, which had come to an incorrect conclusion and therebydenied the Holocaust. It apparently did not interest anyone that the expert report had not been an issue at the trial. Naturally, the Böblinger

634 BRT 1 (Belgian Television), Panorama, April 27, 1995.




398

Bote could not restrain itself from digging up the dpa lie again:635

“In opposition to competent scientific authorities, the Jettingenchemist asserted that mass-killing of humans with hydrogen cyanide

would leave traces of cyanide in the masonry of the remaining buildingsin the camp, but no such traces can be found.”

That the extremely harsh sentence against Rudolf was due to rea-sons of public instruction, and thus for the purpose of frightening anyscientist who might play with the idea of publishing a deviating opin-ion (general prevention), was also the opinion of the Böblinger Bote onJune 27, 1996:

“No probation was granted for the sentence of 14 months impris-

onment handed down in June last year on grounds of general preven-tion.”

Hunted AbroadIn March of 1996, Germar Rudolf went into exile. The press ini-

tially lost track of him and for the time being, lost interest as well. Thischanged in the fall of 1999, when British journalist Chris Hastings (34)set about tracking him down in England. Since Rudolf had registered,as required by law, and residency records are open to the public, it wasnot difficult to establish that Rudolf was residing in England. In addi-tion, Rudolf had listed his post office address on his website (PO Box118, Hastings TN34 3ZQ.) Chris Hastings succeeded in locating theapartment in which Rudolf was registered. He left a note requesting aninterview. Rudolf granted his request by allowing him a two hour in-terview at Victoria station in London. The content of this interviewconcerned primarily the present state of human rights in Germany as

well as the official persecution of Rudolf. But as Rudolf suspected,Hastings was not interested in the present state of human rights inGermany. In Hastings’ article in the Sunday Telegraph of Oct. 17,1999, the subject was not even mentioned. Instead, under a subtitledemagogically slandering Rudolf as a “neo-nazi”, Hastings wrote:636

“He [Rudolf] confirms that, during his stay in Britain, he has forged links with far-Right extremists including members of the National Front

635 Kreiszeitung Böblinger Bote and Gäubote/Südwestpresse-Verbund , May 6, 1996.636 Jessica Berry and Chris Hastings, “German neo-Nazi fugitive is found hiding in Britain”, The

Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 17, 1999; repeated on Oct. 18, 1999 in the Independent.




399

and the British National Party.[...]

‘In Britain I work as an Holocaust revisionist 24 hours a day. Mywork has brought me into contact with people on the far Right. I have

met leading members of the National Front and the British National Party while I have been in England.’”

In the worst tradition of yellow journalism, Hastings took individ-ual words and phrases totally out of context and rearranged them tosuit his sensationalistic purposes. Rudolf never uttered such sentences,with the exception of the sentence about working 24 hours a day for revisionism. It is a fact that, in the spring of 1999, Rudolf met with Nick Griffin and discussed Griffin’s experiences with the British jus-

tice system. The year before, Griffin was, among other things, accusedof having published an article with revisionist statements in a smallright-wing periodical edited by himself, but he had been acquitted. Be-cause of Rudolf’s own exposed position, and because he had exten-sively reported on official censorship in his publication Viertel-

jahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (VffG) before, Rudolf wasnaturally very interested in Griffin’s story, but he was not interested inGriffin’s organizational memberships or functions. Before this meet-

ing, Rudolf was not aware that Griffin held a leading position in thenationalist British National Party. However, during the meeting, Grif-fin informed him that he aspired to chairmanship of the party, to which position he was subsequently elected. When asked by Hastingswhether he was in contact with members of the political right, Rudolf straightforwardly told him of the conversation with Griffin. Hastingsused this to suggest to his readers that Rudolf had forged contacts withthe organizational leadership of the leading rightwing extremist partiesof England. But to the best of his knowledge, Rudolf has never made

contact with any member of the National Front.Hastings went so far as to interview Rudolf’s former landlady,

whom he absurdly quoted as follows:

“Sheila Evans, Rudolf’s former landlady, said: ‘I remember he said he was a writer working for journals in Germany. I was struck by howclean he left the house when he left. He stripped it bare. I think he wastrying to cover his tracks.’”

In fact, when he negotiated the tenancy contract in July 1996, Ru-dolf had told his landlady that he will write for a German periodical.(VffG first appeared in spring of 1997, published by the Flemish or-




400

ganization Vrij Historisch Onderzoek 637). Mrs. Evans was the mostferocious house-dragon that Rudolf ever met. When Rudolf moved out,he had to repair and repaint every little scratch on the skirting boards,

every bit of chipped enamel on door frames and heaters, every tinydent in the walls before she would return his deposit. Surely it wasnormal behavior for Rudolf to take his belongings with him when hemoved out. It seems that when people read about their neighbors in thenewspapers, they see ghosts and goblins everywhere.

Chris Hastings continued to make Rudolf’s presence and activitiesknown to a very large number of nosy and peculiar people. He prompted them to agree that England needs a law to protect holocaustlore against scientific examination. And he prompted them to agreethat Rudolf should be extradited to Germany immediately.

The results were not long in coming. The established media inGermany ground out another sensationalistic story. “ Indicted Neo-naziin Great Britain”, blared the dpa (German Press Agency) on October 18, 1999 (it was printed on the 19th in Rheinpfalz and other places.)“ Holocaust denier hiding out in England ” announced the leftwingStuttgarter Nachrichten on October 21, page 4. On October 31, ChrisHastings jubilantly announced in the Sunday Telegraph that Germany

would now seriously pursue Rudolf’s extradition. He predicted thatEngland would comply because Rudolf had not been convicted for holocaust denial, but for incitement to racial hatred, which is a viola-tion of English law, too.638 On October 22, the local press in Hastings,where Rudolf resided, chimed in with “ Fleeing neo-nazi uses base in

Hastings” (The Hastings and St. Leonards Observer ). The monthlyEnglish manhunter tabloid Searchlight joined the hunt in December with “ Auschwitz liar hides out in Britain” on page 13.639 Chris Hast-

ings added more wood to the flames in his update of January 16, 2000:“ Neo-nazi accused of ‘racial hatred’ goes on the run [...] Germany hasissued an international arrest warrant for Germar Rudolf, who fled to

England to escape a prison sentence for inciting racial hatred .”The manhunt turned completely into hysteria with a BBC report

about Rudolf on March 28, 2000, which was repeated the day after by

637 Address: Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 118, Hastings TN34 3ZQ, UK; online:

http://vho.org/VffG638 This was echoed, e.g., by the Australian Jewish News, Nov. 5, 1999.639 The German matching piece to this periodical, blick nach rechts, started its campaign as late

as June 2000 with a contribution by Thomas Pfeiffer in the same style, of course.




401

the south English regional TV station ITV. Six or seven photographsof Rudolf were shown during the report which had been taken fromRudolf’s website www.vho.org. The public was warned to beware of

this “nazi sympathizer ”. The audience must have gained the impressionthat Rudolf was so dangerous that he was running around murdering people. Mr. Michael Whine of the British Jewish Board of Deputieswas pleased to appear before the cameras and announce that regardingRudolf, England was dealing with a “new breed of dangerous nazis”.The local press chimed in once more with “ Escaped Neo-nazi still hid-ing in Hastings [...] he [...] was still being hunted .” (The Hastings and St. Leonards Observer , March 31, 2000). Obviously, the powers that be are striving to familiarize the local populace with Rudolf’s likenessand condition them to be afraid of him. It wants them to complain tothe police about the desperado in their midst.

On May 27, 2000, Günther Hoerbst of the Hamburger Abendblatt reported on a report of the Israeli university of Tel Aviv entitled “ Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1998/99”:

“Twelve pages of the report are dedicated to Germany. The report complains about the growing acceptance of the holocaust lie, primarilyby means of the internet and rightwing extremist groups. The report ac-knowledges that present German legislation provides the most ‘advanced and effective attempts at combating the holocaust lie’, but ‘it neverthe-less is a growing phenomenon’. For instance, the leading German holo-caust liar Rudolf continues to disseminate his writings over the internet

from foreign countries, even though he has been convicted and sentenced in Germany.”

What a pity that is!So far, the only more or less impartial article about Rudolf has ap-

peared on January 7, 2000, in the Los Angeles Times, in connectionwith the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial. It was written by Kim Murphy.640

Freedom of the Press = A Truthful Press?Against several of the above-mentioned media pieces, namely

those where the person of Germar Rudolf himself had been attacked, itwould have been possible to demand a right of reply in the press.However, with respect to factually false assertions such as the fabri-

cated dpa notice which did not touch Rudolf personally, there can be640 Online at: http://www.codoh.com/newsdesk/000107.html.




402

no recourse under current law.The District Court of Stuttgart sentenced Germar Rudolf to 14

months imprisonment without probation for the reasons that Rudolf

was deeply marked with anti-Semitism, that he was entangled in a re-visionist and right-wing extremist environment, and that he was obvi-ously a fanatical, politically motivated criminal. In that moment, thecourt gave the media license to vilify and malign Germar Rudolf with-out let or hindrance, since in the Federal Republic of Germany, anyonelabeled as an anti-Semite or right-wing extremist is a de facto outlaw.That the court did not find that Rudolf was a right-wing extremist,merely that he had had dealings with supposedly “right-wing extrem-ist ” persons, was of secondary importance and in view of the media practice of imputing guilt by association no cause to hold back. Ru-dolf’s applications for rebuttal in the press were denied out-of-hand,since in the meantime the version of the story spread by the press had been confirmed by the courts.

In a democracy, the people are the sovereign. Should the voice of the people become the voice of God not only with respect to power, but also partly with respect to infallibility, care must be taken that the people are comprehensively and truthfully informed. In this modern

information age, the media play the central role in forming the publicwill. For this reason, it must be guaranteed that the people are compre-hensively and truthfully informed.

The intentional presentation of false and one-sided information tothe public must automatically lead to false conceptions of reality andthence to unwise political decisions. The intentional presentation of disinformation through suppression of news or spreading of false newsshould be considered one of the most serious crimes of a political na-

ture that can be committed in a democracy.The question of the executive and judicial means by which the

people can be guaranteed to be kept comprehensively and truthfullyinformed is bound to be a difficult one in view of the fundamentalfreedoms of press and speech. It would be necessary to require, for example, that the media be subject to democratic control in that theformation of political or economic monopolies would be prevented.One proposal would be to allow access to the media in their area of

operations to political parties proportional to the vote they received or to socially-concerned organizations (such as religions) proportional totheir membership, without a limiting minimum percent.




403

Also the right of reply in the press should be expanded such that itshould apply not only when a person’s reputation is harmed, but alsowhen it can be shown that a news item is grossly one-sided or wrong,

and that the truth itself has been harmed.The criminal prosecution of persons of whom it can be proven thatthey deliberately composed and distributed false information is prob-lematic, since the proof of the assertion that a journalist deliberatelyspread false news—that he lied—could only rarely succeed. The simple assertion that the journalist must have known that his report wasnot true since all others knew it should never suffice.641

After all, I think we do not need laws to censor liars, but laws that punish censors. That alone can be a remedy for the escalating censor-ship in modern Europe.

641 This is the trick used to send revisionists to jail: Since everyone knows that the Holocausthappened, revisionists must know it also. When they still assert the opposite, they must do sowittingly and therefore they lie. Whoever lies has evil intentions and therefore belongs behind

bars. Such is the logic of terror.




404

“Thank heaven, we live under the rule of law. But unfortunately, that does not apply to the territory of

the Federal Republic of Germany.”

Johannes Gross, Capital , Germany, Nov. 1994, p. 3

11.6. Outlawed in the Federal Republic of Germany

The Disfranchisement of Unwelcome Citizens642 In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, many European nations pos-

sessed the legal power to disfranchise citizens for gross misdeeds.With the rise of secularized constitutional nations, the use of this power disappeared until it resurfaced in the 3rd Reich as Thought-crime Laws. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the possibility of far-reaching revocations of civil rights was built right into the constitutionin Article 18 of the Basic Law, but until recently no use was made of it. Jochen Lober has shown that the equivalent curtailment of the civilrights of citizens has been achieved by extra-constitutional regula-tion.643 We will examine here Lober’s question, whether a form of de

facto outlawry was introduced with the revision of section 130 of the

German Penal Code, which made any kind of Holocaust denial—or revisionism—and opposition to multi-culturalism a potential criminaloffense punishable by up to five years in prison. This will be done bystudying the fate of Auschwitz researcher Diplom-Chemist Germar Rudolf. What happened to him will be examined phenomenologically,not chronologically, in order to focus on the effects of German crimi-nal law on the civil rights of German citizens.

First Step: DenunciationFrom September 20 to 22, 1991, a seminar took place in Nurem-

berg (Bavaria) on Holocaust revisionism, sponsored by the libertarianBavarian Thomas Dehler Foundation.

Among the participants, besides Germar Rudolf, there was a cer-tain Diplom-Physicist Hermann Körber from Bünde. north Germany.His behavior during the seminar was highly unpleasant. During a dis- 642

Written after reading the article by J. Lober in Staatsbriefe 7/95 mentioned in the beginning;taken from Staatsbriefe 12/95, Verlag Castel del Monte, Postfach 14 06 28, 80456 Munich, pp. 10-15.

643 Staatsbriefe 7/95




405

cussion period, for example, he stated that the German people shouldnot only be considered as murderers, but as plunderers as well. He alsosuggested that the Germans themselves were to blame for the many

deaths among old people, women and children that were caused by theAllied aerial bombardment, because they had started the bombing(which is not true) and had knowingly failed to evacuate the civil population (which was also not true, since many children were sent tothe country). During the Sunday dinner, Körber threatened a fellow participant sitting at his table with a dinner knife because the persondid not share his opinion on the Holocaust, and at the close on Sundayafternoon, he loudly called the participants Germar Rudolf and Win-fried Zwerenz pigs, because they had disagreed with him on scientificgrounds.

On November 5, 1992, this Hermann Körber filed a criminal complaint with State Attorney Baumann in Schweinfurt against Germar Rudolf for instigating Otto Ernst Remer to incitement to racial ha-tred.644 He claimed that it was Rudolf and his expert report that hadcaused Remer to begin publishing material on the Holocaust in his

Remer Depesche ( Remer Dispatches).645 Subsequently, the state attor-ney of Schweinfurt initiated a criminal investigation against Rudolf on

grounds of incitement to racial hatred, and others, in which O. E.Remer was also named.646 Both accused denied the accusations.

Then, on April, 19, 1993, at the state attorney’s office in Bielefeld,Körber filed a witness affidavit in which he stated:647

“As a Diplom Chemist, Rudolf knows and must know that his thesesare scientifically untenable.

It can be proven that that which Rudolf convinced Remer of is trick-ery.”

On April 27, 1993, as proof of his assertion that Rudolf was know-ingly deceitful, Körber filed another affidavit in which he interpretedRudolf’s technical arguments made in an exchange of correspondencewith Werner Wegner, as incitement to racial hatred, and characterized

644 Investigation File 1 in the trial against Germar Rudolf, District Court of Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs83/94, sheet 15.

645 The Remer Depesche had already appeared in Spring 1991, before Rudolf had begun his re-

search as expert witness.646 Ref. 8 Js 13182/92, Investigation File 1 (District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94), sheet17ff.

647 Ibid., sheet 58.




406

Rudolf’s assertion that unambiguous technical evidence was superior to ambiguous documentary evidence as “unscientific and unprofes-

sional procedure”.648

In another affidavit made on April 30, 1993, Körber assertedfalsely that Rudolf supported

“the Leuchter thesis that there was a danger of explosion through-out the Auschwitz compound, at least for structures, whenever gassing operations with Zyklon B were going on.”

Rudolf had in fact stated that the use of high concentrations of Zyklon B to reduce execution periods to minutes or seconds, as thewitnesses had reported, would mean that there would be safety prob-

lems due to explosive concentrations of hydrogen cyanide.649 He hadnever spoken nor written of a general danger of explosion.

The busy witness Körber was at it again on May 26, 1993, thistime to assert that the references to the Rudolf Report in various edi-tions of the Remer Depesche proved that the author Rudolf was thecause. Körber also claimed that Rudolf’s attempt to testify as an expertwitness, which was refused by the court, constituted conspiracy tocommit perjury.650 On June 7, 1993, he repeated his accusations that

Rudolf had instigated Remer to his misdeeds in the Remer Depesche,and offered evidence that would defer the possible termination of theinvestigation.651

It should be pointed out that there is no mention among Körber’sstatements of the fact that Germar Rudolf had written him a lengthyletter in January 1993, in which Rudolf presented detailed argumentssupporting the conclusions of his report.652 Körber had never answeredthe letter. His only response had been to make false accusations aboutRudolf to the police.

In mid-April 1993, the state attorney of Stuttgart set in motion an-other prosecution against Germar Rudolf in addition to the ongoing prosecution concerning incitement. This one was initiated by retiredGeneralmajor O. E. Remer’s distribution of a commented version of

648 Ibid., sheet 63649 See chapter 6.3. for this.650 Investigation File 1 (District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94), sheet 84f.651

Ibid., sheet 86.652 In the exhibits of the trial against Rudolf (District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94), Corre-spondence File K. Rudolf had added thanks for Körber’s Christmas present – his criminalcomplaint.




407

the Rudolf Report.The first copies of Remer’s version were sent to various notable

personalities in politics, justice, and science on April 16, 1993.653 On

the same day, Prof. Dr. Hanns F. Zacher, President of the Max-Planck-Corporation (MPG), received a call from the Chairman of the Direc-torate of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of Jews in Germany), Ignatz Bubis, in which Herr Bubis told Prof. Zacher of his concern about the effect of the Rudolf Report by Diplom-Chemist Germar Rudolf, at that time an MPG employee.654 It is notknown what Prof. Zacher did in response to the call. In any case therewas no attempt by the MPG administration to terminate Rudolf’s employment at that time.

In mid-May 1993, Rudolf received at his office two calls from journalists (the German weekly magazine stern and the private TV sta-tion SAT 1) dealing with the distribution of the Remer version. Duringone of these calls, a colleague of Rudolf was in the room. The col-league later told another colleague, Jörg Sassmannshausen, who im-mediately reported the event to the executive Director of the Max-Planck-Institute, Prof. Arndt Simon.655 Subsequently, Germar Rudolf was asked not to appear at the Institute anymore unless at the explicit

request of his doctoral supervisor, Prof. Dr. H. G. von Schnering, inorder to make sure that there might be no further contact with journal-ists during work hours. His employment contract had not been men-tioned.

This request was subsequently repeated in writing. Nine days af-terwards, Rudolf entered the Max-Planck-Institute in order to copysome documents and to discuss the reproduction of his doctoral thesiswith his doctoral supervisor. He deliberately avoided his office in order

653 Germar Rudolf’s doctoral supervisor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. H. G. von Schnering, as well as sev-eral other professors at the Max- Planck- Institute for Solid State Research received the pi-rated version on this day: decision, District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, p. 126.

654 A later letter of the Central Council of Jews to the President of the MPG on June 22, 1993,refers to this telephone call. Facsimile published in Wilhelm Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf , op.cit. (note 91); from the records of the Labor Court Stuttgart in the case Rudolf v. Max- Planck-Institute for Solid State Research, ref. 14 Ca 6663/93.

655 According to information from his secretary, Prof. Simon knew what role he was being forcedto play, but for opportunistic reasons he put his career and the reputation of the Max-Planck-

Institute ahead of upholding the principles of scientific research; information received frommy former wife who still workes at this institute. On this affair, cf. also Prof. Simon’s reveal-ing statements and the discussion on the social taboo that must be observed by German scien-tists in: W. Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf , (note 91).




408

to avoid being confronted with questions from the media. Rudolf wasseen by Institute workers, however, and they reported his presence tothe executive director.

Second Step: Professional RuinRudolf had neglected to ask his doctoral supervisor for permission

to enter the Institute. The following day he was asked to accept termi-nation of his employment contract without notice.656 The justificationfor this was primarily that Rudolf had sent letters on stationary withthe Max-Planck-Institute letterhead while working on the Report. Ru-dolf had privately engaged the Fresenius Institute to analyze the wall

samples from Auschwitz for traces of cyanide. But when the FreseniusInstitute was already working on his samples in Rudolf’s presence, hehanded in a letter typed on a letter head of his employer with a detailedspecification of the work to be conducted by the Fresenius Institute anda detailed description of the samples. Though the unauthorized use of official letterheads for private purposes was widespread at the Max-Planck-Institute at the time, in Rudolf’s case it became a no-no. It wasthis use of Institute letterhead, about which the management of the In-

stitute first became aware through news reports,

657

that established theconnection of the Institute with the Rudolf Report.Apparently because of the failure of the MPG to respond to the in-

tercession of I. Bubis (see above), on June 22, 1993, the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of Jews in Germany) felt itnecessary to notify the President of the MPG that he was expected totake appropriate measures to restrict the activities of Report researcher Germar Rudolf. On July 14, 1993, the President of the MPG informedthe Central Council that the MPG had no further responsibility for the

activities of Herr Rudolf, since he had been fired.The subsequent labor court proceeding instituted by Rudolf

against the Max-Planck-Institute with respect to his termination with-out notice turned on the question, whether the generally-practiced andin his case already known infraction “ private use of official letterhead ”could be used as grounds for dismissal without notice when theAuschwitz issue was mixed in. Labor court judge Stolz made it clear

656 This description is based on the transcript of Rudolf’s testimony from memory from this time,Computer Data File 2, (District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94), 175-220.

657 Wiesbadener Kurier on 8./9. and 13. May 1993.




409

that an employer could dismiss an employee anytime who held suchviews as the plaintiff Germar Rudolf. This amounts to the principlethat Rudolf and others who think like him are outlaws with respect to

the labor law. For reasons of social concern, the Max-Planck-Instituteoffered to make an agreement with the plaintiff out of court, by whichthe termination without notice would be revoked and at the same timereplaced by a mutual agreement that the employment contract would be terminated, barring further recourse.658

Despite this dispute between Rudolf and his now former employer, his doctoral supervisor Prof. H. G. von Schnering continued tosupport his doctoral candidate and in July 1993 certified that Rudolf possessed the necessary professional and ethical qualification to takethe next step, the final examination called the Rigorosum. In thatmonth, Rudolf submitted to the University of Stuttgart his doctoral the-sis with all necessary supporting documents and applied for admissionto the Rigorosum. By fall 1993, however, permission for the promotionhad still not been granted. On inquiry at the University, Rudolf wastold that his application had been put on hold because of the criminalinvestigation initiated against Rudolf for incitement to racial hatred aswell as that against O. E. Remer for distribution of Remer’s version of

the Rudolf Report. The University of Stuttgart maintained that it wasquestionable whether the candidate possessed the necessary ethicalqualification.

The grounds for this decision was section 4 of the Law On Aca-demic Degrees, enacted by Adolf Hitler in 1939 and still in force inGermany today. By this provision, an academic degree can be revokedor withheld, if one does not possess the necessary ethical qualification.According to a decision of the Administrative Court of Baden-

Württemberg, an academic title can only be withheld when there has been a judicial sentence for a serious crime that has been entered onthe person’s police record of conduct.659

658 Labor Court of Stuttgart, ref. 14 Ca 6663/93. A detailed description of the events in the Max-Planck-Institute and elsewhere about the Rudolf report during the year 1993, with a series of reproduced documents, can be found in the brochure W. Schlesiger, The Rudolf Case, op. cit. (note 91).

659 Ref. IX 1496/79, decision on March 18, 1981. At that time, a person who had been convicted

to five years imprisonment for a drug offense which was entered in his police record, was cer-tified as having the necessary ethical qualification, and the University was ordered to admithim to the Rigorosum. In this decision, it was held that this Hitler law is still in effect becauseit does not contain National Socialist thinking and should be considered as having been legally




410

Since at the time of his application for admission to the Rigoro-sum 1) Rudolf had not been judicially sentenced and 2) such a decisionwas not expected by him, Rudolf filed a complaint against the Univer-

sity of Stuttgart in the County Court of Stuttgart for failure to act. Atthe behest of the University of Stuttgart, the County Court Stuttgartstalled on grounds that the ongoing criminal proceeding against Rudolf would have to be concluded before it could be decided whether Rudolf possessed the necessary qualifications for promotion.660

After the sentence against Rudolf was handed down in March1996, the University of Stuttgart advised him that it was in his bestinterest to withdraw his application for promotion, since otherwise theUniversity most likely would refuse his application because of Ru-dolf’s conviction for a severe crime. Rudolf complied, because hemight otherwise have to reckon with the problem that his doctoralwork might be unacceptable everywhere else in the world.661

By good fortune, in fall 1994 Rudolf obtained a position as a fieldrepresentative with a firm dealing in corrosion inhibiting products.During her research into ‘right-wing businesses’, left-wing journalistF. Hundseder stumbled onto the fact that Rudolf was employed at oneof them. In the ARD broadcast Panorama in mid-May 1995, this dis-

covery was described as a scandal, and both the company and their employee Rudolf as heinous Neo-Nazis. The company came immedi-ately under such heavy pressure from customers, suppliers, employeesand competitors that by mutual agreement they and Rudolf terminatedhis employment contract in order to prevent further loss to the company. Due to this denunciation by the media, Rudolf lost his job withina few days.

In the current state of German labor law, if in future applications

for employment Rudolf were not to mention his revisionist activitiesand this were to become known to his employer, it would be consid-ered grounds for dismissal. If he duly mentioned these activities, how-ever, he could expect not to find any ordinary employment anywhere

enacted.660 Ref. 13 K 1329/94. After the prison sentence against Rudolf was announced, Rudolf’s doc-

toral supervisor commented that he would have to sit out his punishment before he could

complete his doctoral program. Prof. von Schnering was apparently always ready to stand be-hind his candidate.661 See the letter of the University as well as Rudolf’s reaction (in German only online:

vho.org/Authors/UniStgt.html and vho.org/Authors/RudolfUniStgt.html).




411

in Germany.662

Third Step: Persecution through Prosecution

A more complete analysis of the prosecution against Rudolf will be left to other works. Rudolf was accused not only because of Remer’s political commentary, which was falsely attributed to Rudolf, but also because of the purely technical conclusions in his Report.663 Inthe principal hearing Presiding Judge Dr. Dietmar Mayer stated thatthe competence of the court did not extend to the evaluation of the sci-entific validity of the expert report. Because of this, the contents of theexpert report were not addressed in the proceeding, but only the ques-

tion whether the defendant was responsible for Remer’s commentary.In its decision, the court made no secret of the fact that it held re-visionist thinking itself to be reprehensible and punishable by increas-ing the severity of the sentence.664 However, the sentence against Ru-dolf to 14 months prison without probation was based on the false con-tention that Rudolf had at least knowingly contributed to the politicalcommentary contained in Remer’s version of his expert report. Thecourt justified its sentence with a tiresomely assembled chain of proofs

amounting to 240 pages which in decisive points departed from theactual evidence and which completely ignored the contradictory evi-dence on the main point of the defense.

The chemical and construction problems of the buildings atAuschwitz dealt with in the Rudolf Report were characterized by thecourt as “hardly clarifiable details of the National Socialist mass-crimes”, thus, under no circumstance a matter of ‘common knowl-edge’.665

Rudolf’s trial on account of the business with Remer’s version

ended in summer 1995. Under which star this trial was held was made blindingly clear by a document from the trial records: Rudolf’s judgesin the District Court of Stuttgart wanted to prevent that they them-selves should come under the wheels of denunciation and inquisition,as had the judges of the District Court of Mannheim in the Günter Deckert Case, who were massively criticized by media and politicians,

662

There remained the non-ordinary way that he has followed successfully.663 Criminal indictment by the States Attorney of Stuttgart on 19. April 1994, ref. 4 Js 34417/93.664 Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, decision p. 239.665 Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, decision p. 15.




412

threatened with prosecution, and eventually send to early retirement because they had dared to call a leading revisionist a man of goodcharacter and sentence him only to one year imprisonment with proba-

tion. Before the opening of the trial against Rudolf, Rudolf’s judgestherefore carefully inquired with the German Federal Supreme Courtwith respect to its decision against Günter Deckert and receive an im-mediate reply.666 Since the German Federal Supreme Court revised theDeckert decision so many times until a sentence of imprisonmentwithout probation was certain, it is obvious that in the Rudolf Case thesame sentence of imprisonment without probation was the only optionif the judges wanted to stay out of trouble.

At the same time as the above-mentioned prosecution, there werethree other prosecutions underway against Germar Rudolf. In the firstcase, he was accused of being mainly or at least partially responsiblefor the publication of the journals Remer Depesche and Deutschland

Report .667 The second involved his publication of the work Grundla- gen zur Zeitgeschichte.668 The third was directed against an exchangeof correspondence between Rudolf and the Cracow Institute for Foren-sic Research on chemical questions concerning the gas chambers of Auschwitz that was published in Sleipnir , issue 3, 1995.587

It was clear already then that these would not be the last measurestaken against Rudolf, especially since he intended to defend himself in print. In view of the fact that the District Court of Stuttgart was able tofind the defendant guilty contrary to the evidence, one could justifiablyfear that in each outstanding trial, the innocent defendant would befound just as guilty, and that he would find himself incarcerated under the terms of several sentences of increasing severity.

In the meantime, Rudolf’s home had been searched three times,

and each time books, archives, correspondence, technical data and hiscomputer equipment were seized. The principal loss was not that of physical items, but the intellectual loss of data and archive material.The result was that Rudolf could no longer work as a scientist and alsocould not defend himself unrestrictedly in court, since his resources to

666 Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, Letter of the 17th Criminal Justice Chamber of the District Court of Stuttgart to the Federal High Court (BGH) on April 21, 1994. Investi-gation File 2, sheet 768. Answer of the Federal High Court on April 26, 1994 with enclosure:

decision on March 15, 1994 re: G. A. Deckert, ref. 1 StR 179/93.667 County Court of Böblingen, ref. 9 Gs 521/94. This case was later dropped due to lack of evi-dence.

668 See chapter 11.4.2.




413

do so were continually taken away. Even the standard literature on theHolocaust was confiscated.

Only those who have themselves undergone the same thing can

judge the psychological stress caused to an innocent person throughundergoing years-long criminal prosecutions. In addition to these psy-chic burdens, there are the legal expenses to consider. Currently, theycan be calculated only with difficulty but, loosely estimated, they mustrun into a few hundred thousand Dollars. It is clear that at the close of the trial against him, Rudolf was financially ruined for the foreseeablefuture—quite apart from the fact that for the foreseeable future hewould be given no chance to meet these burdens through employmentin his profession, at least not within Germany.

Fourth Step: DefamationAt the close of the labor court hearing of the case against the Max-

Planck-Institute, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa) published its al-ready mentioned false announcement on the Rudolf Report.

Rudolf not only proved that the expert opinion cited in this an-nouncement by the dpa was wholly fabricated – the MPG distanced

itself from the announcement – but also that the report based on the phantom opinion is so false that no expert in the world would embraceit. But this does not hinder the media to spread the announcement far and wide and to use it as proof of the obvious falseness of the Rudolf Report.669 In the meantime, this false press release even appeared in themedia in foreign countries.670 Since then, Rudolf has been defamed asa right-wing radical,671 a right-wing extremist,672 a Neo-Nazi673 and a brown doctoral candidate.674 His Report is always named in quotation-marks, and characterized as hack-work 675 or merely as a “ false re-

port ”.676 Unfounded accusations of xenophobia677 are accompanied by

669 See chapter 11.5.Cf. also the article “The Role of the Press in the Case of Germar Rudolf ” in this collection.

670 For example, in the South African newspaper The Citizen, June 24, 1995, p. 8.671 dpa news release on March 28, 1994, published in the German daily newspapers on March 29,

30, 31, 1994.672 Die Welt , April 5, 1995.673 Landesschau, Südwest 3, Dec. 27, 1994; Kreiszeitung – Böblinger Bote, March 29, 1995.674

Die Zeit , April 15, 1993, p. 44.675 Stuttgarter Zeitung , Nov. 23, 1994676 Die Welt , March 29, 1994.677 Stuttgarter Zeitung , Jan. 27, 1995




414

the false assertion of Judge Dr. Mayer that Rudolf was deeply marked by anti-Semitism, which, since it is wrong, is all the more ferociouslymaintained.

By 1994, Rudolf had had no success with his attempts to defendhimself against the effects of hostile descriptions, but this was duemore to financial difficulties than to judicial defeats.678 But once Ru-dolf was sentenced for his supposed crime, the media declared openseason on him.

Fifth Step: Destruction of the Personal WorldWhen the ARD smeared Rudolf in the most vicious way in its

spring 1994 broadcast Report ,679

Rudolf’s parents distanced them-selves from him and refused to come to his wedding, scheduled for several weeks later. All his relatives joined them in this, except for hissiblings.680 His godmother Hannelore Dörschler distanced herself expressly from the views of the people with whom Rudolf surroundedhimself, without knowing with which persons Rudolf actually sur-rounded himself or what views they held.681

Since November 2, 1983, Germar Rudolf had belonged to the

Catholic German Student Fraternity AV Tuisconia Königsberg inBonn. This fraternity is a member of an umbrella organization thatclaims to be the largest academic organization of Europe, and to whichfamous personalities belong(ed): Josef Cardinal Höffner, Joseph Car-dinal Ratzinger, Friedrich Cardinal Wetter, Archbishop JohannesDyba, Franz-Josef Strauß (former Ministerpresident of Bavaria, Fed-eral Defense Minister), Philipp Jenninger (former President of theGerman Parliament), Matthias Wissmann (former Minister for Scienceand Technology), Alexander von Stahl (former Federal General State

Attorney), Herbert Hupka, Rainer Barzel, Otto von Habsburg, Frie-drich Wilhelm, Prince von Hohenzollern, Prof. Peter Berglar, Prof.Josef Stingl, Thomas Gottschalk and others.682

678 A complaint against the Süddeutsche Zeitung was denied on account of errors of form, but thefee of ca. DM 5,000 (ca. $2,500) had to be paid anyway.

679 A detailed critique of this broadcast can be found in: W. Schlesiger (note 91).680 Statement of witness Ursula Rudolf on March 24, 1995 in Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref.

17 KLs 83/94.681

Letter of the accused to his godmother on April 30, 1994, introduced in the main trial proceed-ing on Feb. 23, 1995 in Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94.682 Cartell-Verband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen (Cartel-Union of Catholic

German Student Fraternities) (CV), with approximately 35,000 members.




415

When Rudolf’s revisionist activity became known in spring 1994,the umbrella organization exerted pressure on Rudolf’s organization toexpel him. Because of this, his organization convened a session of

various of its members that spring, without the knowledge or participa-tion of Rudolf, at which his revisionist activity was discussed. An expulsion process followed that held a hearing on August 20, 1994, andended by expelling him in the fall.

This expulsion was by reason that:683

“The Holocaust and the acknowledgement thereof is the normative foundation of our [German] Constitution. The legitimacy—in the sense of worthiness of acceptance—of the Basic Law is based on the recognitionof the fact of National Socialist criminal measures by which Jews were

subject to a systematic technical mass murder. Inasmuch as Fraternity Brother Rudolf raises doubts about the deliberate annihilation of the Jews, he also raises doubts about the normative consensus on which the Basic Law is based.

Content (normative consensus) and form (institutional order) of the Basic Law are inextricably interwoven and their substance cannot be al-tered.

Thereby, Fraternity Brother Rudolf violates our Patria Principle.”

The Patria Principle is one of the four principles of the semi-conservative umbrella organization.684 Today, the principle is primarilyunderstood as meaning constitutional patriotism. It is left to the reader to judge the mental health of the lawyers that composed these pro-nouncements. The fact is that the decision to expel Rudolf because of the pressure from the superior organization was inescapable, and it wasadmitted that the decision would have been otherwise, had there beenno outside pressure.685

Sixth Step: HomelessnessWhen the police searched Rudolf’s home a second time on August

18, 1994, the local media described him as a well-known right-wingextremist personality. In the small village of Jettingen, where Rudolf lived at the time, it was thought necessary to do something to rid the

683

Written decision of the Conduct Court, e. v. AV Tuisconia Königsberg zu Bonn on Aug. 20,1995, written by constitutional attorney Herbert Stomper. Rudolf’s appeal was rejected.684 The other three are: religio, scientia, amicitia.685 Testimony of union brother Dr. Markus Kiefer in the trial in the Conduct Court.




416

town of this unwelcome citizen. It was made clear to Rudolf’s landlordthat the community did not wish him to lease a dwelling to Rudolf. Itwas also made clear to Rudolf’s landlord that he should have an inter-

est in getting rid of his lessee, too, since otherwise he would have todeal with such things as that his son could no longer bring his friendshome, because their parents would not allow them to enter a house inwhich Neo-Nazis lived.686 Therefore, Rudolf’s occupancy of the dwell-ing was terminated as soon as the lease allowed, at a time when hiswife expected the birth of their first child within four weeks.687

When the landlords of the dwelling that Rudolf had rented thereaf-ter, the couple Sedlatschek of Steinenbronn, learned from the news onJune 23, 1995, about the fact that Rudolf had been sentenced to 14months imprisonment, they had their lawyers communicate the follow-ing to him:688

“In the name of and on behalf of our clients we hereby terminateimmediately the lease under the lease contract executed October 26,1994, between you and them.

Our clients became aware through the press, by radio, and television that you, Herr Rudolf, were sentenced to 14 months imprisonment by the District Court of Stuttgart for the crime of incitement to racial ha-tred. Our clients therefore no longer desire to continue the lease.

I am required to demand of you to depart from the dwelling no later than

July 31, 1995

and to surrender the premises to our clients in the agreed-uponcondition.

If you fail to comply with this demand, we are authorized to file a

complaint without delay.”When Rudolf requested his landlord to withdraw the termination,

threatening otherwise he would file a counter-complaint, the landlordthreatened eviction. For private reasons, among them that his wife wasexpecting her second child, he submitted, found a new residence and

686 So the statement of the landlord at the time, Karlheinz Bühler, to G. Rudolf in later Summer 1994.

687

It was not necessary to give a reason, because by the German Civil Code (BGB) no reason for termination is necessary with respect to a two-family house in which the landlord himself lives.

688 Facsimile reproduction of this document in Sleipnir 4/95, insider back cover.




417

settled with his landlord out of court.

Seventh Step: Special Treatment

On May 5, 1995, the GRÜNE/Alternative Liste (a radical-left en-vironmental splinter party) of the parliament of Hamburg demandedaccess to court records in the Rudolf case. Though denied at first, asubsequent request for records access on July 3, 1995, apparently suc-ceeded,689 although it is not legal to grant access to the court records tooutside persons who have no direct interest in a case. It is reasonable tofear that the records may have come into the hands of radical anti-fascist groups, where data on witnesses could be collected and com-

pared.The dot on the ‘i’ was the request on October 16, 1994, of the Pro- ject for Study of Anti-Semitism, Faculty of Humanities of the Univer-sity of Tel Aviv, in which a certain Sarah Rembiszewski requested in-formation on the state of Rudolf’s prosecution.690 The judges also wereaware of the world-wide attention on the case. Tel Aviv also pressedfor records access. Is it possible to hope that records access will remaindenied despite the ever more strident pleas out of Tel Aviv, inasmuch

as the research institute has no legal claim to such access? Under cur-rent law, access to court records cannot normally be granted to outside persons with no interest in a case. If it should turn out that Tel Avivgot access to the records without legal ground, that therefore Jews inGermany still receive Sonderbehandlung (special treatment),691 pre-sumably a copy of the records will soon appear in the offices of a uni-versity that probably would like to have intimate details of the revi-sionist scene in Germany. It is even likely the records will find their way to other offices where a more active use might be made of them.

Eighth Step: Destruction of the FamilyAfter his 14 months prison sentence was confirmed in March 1996

by the German Federal Supreme Court, and considering the prospect of perhaps even more severe convictions in several other pending crimi- 689 Sheet 1411 of the Records in Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, with the hand-

written note by Dr. Mayer that access to the records should be granted after records had been

returned by the defense.690 Investigation File 2, Sheet 876, in trial of District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94.691 From the letter of the defense attorney Dr. G. Herzogenrath-Amelung to the District Court of

Stuttgart on this subject on Nov. 16, 1995, in Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94.




418

nal investigations, probably ending with a summary sentence of up tofour years in prison, Rudolf decided to leave Germany with his familyand to settle in England, where he thought freedom of speech is more

then mere lip service. Having built up a revisionist publishing company abroad, his wife decided at the end of 1998 that she could not bear the life in exile, permanently fearing the extradition of her husband, being separated from all her old friends and relatives, havingdifficulties to find new friends and acquaintances, and thus heavilysuffering from homesickness. Hence, in early 1999, she and their twochildren returned to Germany and later started the divorce procedurefrom her husband, leaving him alone in exile.

In fall 1999, when the British media started a smear campaignagainst Rudolf, the nightmare of his wife became true: Rudolf becamefair game of British politics, media and the justice system.692 Had it been possible for his wife and his children until then to visit Rudolf frequently, this turned out to be extremely difficult ever after, sinceRudolf left Europe in late 1999 and entered the USA, where he appliedfor Political Asylum in October 2000. Especially the abandoned father and his two children suffer terribly under this situation of being almosttotally isolated from each other.

In February 2000, Rudolf’s father urged him to get sterilized,since it would be irresponsible both for his first family as well as ingeneral—considering the conditions he has to live in—to father anymore children:693

“Hallo Germar,[...] If you want to avoid such difficulties in future [...] , and you should dothis, regarding getting children, I mean, you should do something about it. Don’t leave it up to the women. You surely know how easy vasoliga-

ture is for a man. Except you want to have more children. But to be hon-est, you cannot do this to your first family. And especially not in your situation. A chat with the urologist, and it already happened. You are up- set about me? So be it. Just see it objectively. […] Father””

Formerly, the persecution of the Jews by some Germans led toconsideration to get certain Jews sterilized. Today, the persecution of Germans, mainly promoted by some Jewish lobbies, leads to consid-

692 See chapter 11.5.693 Email from Georg Hermann Rudolf from February 19, 2000.




419

erations to get Germans sterilized.In August 2000, a week before he was legally divorced from his

wife, Germar Rudolf was told by his mother that his parents had disin-

herited him and entered his children in their last will instead.



421

11.7. Biographical Notes on the Author Germar Rudolf, a certified chemist, was born on October 29,

1964, in Limburg/Lahn, Germany. Elite High School Diploma (Gym-nasium Abitur ) in 1983 in Remscheid, followed by study for a certifiedchemist’s degree at the University of Bonn, graduation summa cum laude in September 1989. Completion of compulsory military service with theGerman Luftwaffe (Air Force). Be-tween October 1990 and June 1993,Mr. Rudolf worked on the prepara-

tion of a doctoral thesis at the Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Re-search in Stuttgart. Despite the high-est recommendations, he was forcedto withdraw his dissertation, becausethe University of Stuttgart threat-ened to rejected it on politicalgrounds (due to his involvement in

revisionism).Since early 1993, he has beenthe defendant in several criminal prosecutions resulting from the pub-lication of scientific texts; in March1996, he left his native Germany andwent into exile, first England, then,in late 1999, the United States. In

late 1996, Mr. Rudolf founded the publishing house Castle Hill Pub-lishers and, simultaneously, a quar-terly historical periodical of Germanlanguage, the aim of which is to dealwith critical aspects of contemporaryhistory currently suppressed in allGerman speaking countries. In 2000,he started publishing English lan-guage books on revisionist topicsunder the imprint of Theses & Dis-

The Author in summer 1991,

while doing the main work for this expert report

The author in late 2002




422

sertations Press, a firm originally established by Robert H. Countessand purchased by Rudolf in summer 2002. Since 2003, he also pub-lishes a quarterly historical language of English language, which fo-

cuses on the same topics as his the German periodical.Books and brochures published: Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte(1993, 2nd edition due for 2003), Das Rudolf Gutachten (1993, 2nd edi-tion 2001; a Dutch translation was published in 1994, a French transla-tion appeared in 1996, for an English translation see this work); Wis-

senschaftlicher Erdrutsch durch das Rudolf Gutachten, (brochure,1993; an English translation appeared in 1994), Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte:

Auch Holocaust-Lügen haben kurze Beine (brochure, 1994), Der Fall Rudolf (brochure, 1994), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (1994; Eng-lish under the title Dissecting the Holocaust 2000, 2nd edition due for 2003); Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten (1995); Kardinalfragen zur Zeit-

geschichte (1996).Since early 1997, Mr. Rudolf is the publisher and responsible edi-

tor of the German quarterly journal Vierteljahreshefte für freieGeschichtsforschung , and since early 2003, he is also the publisher andresponsible editor of the English quarterly journal The Revisionist.

Journal for Critical Historical Inquiry (UK address: Castle Hill Pub-

lishers, PO Box 118, Hastings TN34 3ZQ; US address: PO Box257768, Chicago, IL 60625; email: [email protected].), both includingmany articles by Mr. Rudolf (see online: vho.org/i/a.html).



423

12. Bibliography

12.1. Monographs – Hans G. Adler, Hermann Langbein, Ella Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, Europäische Verlag-

sanstalt, Cologne 31984 – Akademischer Verein Hütte (ed.), Hütte, Ernst und Sohn, Berlin 271942 – Günther Anntohn, Henri Roques, Der Fall Günter Deckert , DAGD/Germania Verlag, Wein-

heim 1995 – Rudolf Aschenauer,Macht gegen Recht , Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Recht und Wirtschaft, Mu-

nich 1952

– Enrique Aynat, Los protocolos de Auschwitz. i Una fuente historica? Verlag Garcia Hispan,Alicante 1990

– Uwe Backes, Eckhart Jesse, Rainer Zitelmann (ed.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit , Pro- pyläen, Frankfurt 1990

– James Bacque,Crimes and Mercies, Little, Brown & Co., Toronto 1996. – James Bacques,Other Losses, Stoddart, Toronto 1989 – John C. Bailar, Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford 1973 – Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer (ed.), Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge,

Deuticke, Vienna 1995 – John Clive Ball, Air Photo Evidence, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor, Bergen Belsen,

Belzec, Babi Yar, Katyn Forest , Ball Resource Service Ltd., Delta, B.C., Canada 1992

– John Clive Ball, The Ball Report , Ball Resource Services Ltd., Delta, BC, Canada, 1993 – Bayerischer Staatsminister des Inneren (ed.), Verfassungsschutzbericht 1997 , Munich 1998 – Wolfgang Benz, Dimension des Völkermords, Oldenbourg, Munich 1991 – Michael Berenbaum,The World Must Know, Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1993 – Jadwiga Bezwinska, KL Auschwitz in den Augen der SS , Verlag des Staatlichen Auschwitz-

Museums, Auschwitz 1973 – Heinz Bobrachet al., Inventar archivalischer Quellen des NS-Staates, K. G. Saur, Munich

1995, volumes 3/1, 1991 – Hans-Kurt Boehlke, Friedhofsbauten, Callwey Verlag, Munich 1974 – Jean-Marie Boisdefeu, La controvers sur l’extermination des Juifs par les Allemands, volume

1, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1994 – William Braker, Allen L. Mossman, Matheson Gas Data Book , Matheson Gas Products, East

Rutherford 1971 – Martin Broszat (ed.), Kommandant in Auschwitz, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1958 – Hans Buchheim, Martin Broszat, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Helmut Krausnick, Anatomie des SS-

Staates, Walter, Freiburg 1964 – Josef G. Burg, Schuld und Schicksal , Damm-Verlag, Munich 1962 – Josef G. Burg, Sündenböcke, Verlag G. Fischer, Munich 1967 – Josef G. Burg, NS-Verbrechen—Prozesse des schlechten Gewissens, ibid. 1968 – Josef G. Burg, Verschwörung des Verschweigens, Ederer, Munich 1979 – Josef G. Burg, Majdanek in alle Ewigkeit?, ibid. 1979 – Josef G. Burg, Zionazi-Zensur in der BRD, ibid. 1980. – Jozef Buszko (ed.), Auschwitz, Nazi Extermination Camp, Interpress Publishers, Warschau

21985 – Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, Arrows Books Ltd., London 1986 – Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Institute for Historical Review, Newport




424

Beach, California, 71985 – Alberto Cantagalli, Nozioni teorico-pratiche per i conduttori di caldaie e generatori di vapore,

G. Lavagnolo Editore, Turin 1940 – Danuta Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-

1945, Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1989 – Wolfgang Czernin, Zementchemie für Bauingenieure, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977 – Max Daunderer, Klinische Toxikologie, 30th suppl. delivery 10/87, ecomed, Landsberg 1987 – Degussa AG (ed.), Im Zeichen von Sonne und Mond , Degussa AG, Frankfurt/Main 1993 – Der praktische Desinfektor , Heft 2, Verlag Erich Deleiter, Berlin 1941 – Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof, Nur-

emberg 1949 – Deutsche Chemische Gesellschaft (ed.), Gmelins Handbuch der Anorganischen Chemie, 59

(Fe), B4, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim 1932 – Dokumentationszentrum des österreichischen Widerstandes, Bundesministerium für Unterricht

und Kultur (eds.), Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit , Vienna 1991, pp. 47-52 – W.H. Duda,Cement-Data-Book , Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1976

– C.T. Duffy,88 Men and 2 Women, Doubleday, New York 1962 – DuPont, Hydrogen Cyanide, Wilmington, Delaware 7/83 – Ecole des hautes études en sciences socials (ed.), L’Allemagne nazie et le génocide juif, Galli-

mard/Le Seuil, Paris 1985 – Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998 edition on CD-ROM – E. Emmerling, in: M. Petzet (ed.), Holzschädlingsbekämpfung durch Begasung , Arbeitshefte

des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege, vol. 75, Lipp-Verlag, Munich 1995 – Robert Faurisson,Mémoire en défense, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1980 – Robert Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, 4 vols., published by author, Vichy 1999. – Robert Faurisson,“Es gab keine Gaskammern”, Deutscher Arbeitskreis Witten, Witten 1978 – H. Ferch, H. Schäfer, Schriftenreihe Pigmente Nr. 77 , Degussa AG, Frankfurt 1990

– Norman G. Finkelstein, Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and His-torical Truth, Metropolitan Books, New York 1998 – Ferdinand Flury, Franz Zernik, Schädliche Gase, Dämpfe, Nebel, Rauch- und Staubarten,

Berlin 1931 – Wilhelm Foerst (ed.), Ullmanns Encyklopädie der technischen Chemie, vol. 5, Urban und

Schwarzenberg, Munich 31954; volume 13, ibid. 31962; volume 18, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim1979.

– Wolfgang Forth, Dietrich Henschler, Werner Rummel, Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakolo- gie und Toxikologie, Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim 1987

– Henry Friedländer,The Holocaust , Vol. 12: “The ‘finale solution’ in the extermination campsand the aftermath”, Garland, New York 1982

– Ernst Gauss,Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993

– Ernst Gauss (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust , Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2000 – Ernst Gauss (ed.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, ibid. 1994 – Ernst Gauss (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust , 2nd edition, Theses & Dissertations Press, Cap-

shaw, AL, 2003 – Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the Allies, Henry Holt & Co., New York 1981 – Wigbert Grabert,Geschichtsbetrachtung als Wagnis, Grabert, Tübingen 1984 – Helge Grabitz, NS-Prozesse – Psychogramme der Beteiligten, 2nd ed., C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

1986 – Jürgen Graf, Der Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand , Guideon Burg, Basel 1992 – Jürgen Graf, Der Holocaust-Schwindel , ibid. 1993 – Jürgen Graf, Auschwitz. Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust , Verlag Neue

Visionen, Würenlos 1994 – Jürgen Graf,Todesursache Zeitgeschichtsforschung , ibid. 1995 – Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek , Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 1998



12. B IBLIOGRAPHY

425

– Jürgen Graf, Mattogno, Das KL Stutthof , Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 1999 – Jürgen Graf, Riese auf tönernen Füßen, ibid. 1999 – Jürgen Graf,The Giant With Feet of Clay, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001 – Karl Greimer, Handbuch des praktischen Desinfektors, Th. Steinkopf, Dresden 1937 – Pierre Guillaume, De la misère intellectuelle en milieu universitaire, B.P. 9805, 75224 Paris

cedex 05, 1995 – Yisrael Gutman, Michael Berenbaum (ed.), Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Indiana

University Press, Bloomington 1994 – Friedrich E. Haag, Lagerhygiene, Taschenbuch des Truppenarztes, vol. VI, F. Lehmanns Ver-

lag, Munich 1943 – David E. Hackett, (ed.), The Buchenwald Report , Beck, Munich 1997 – O. Hähnle, Baustoff-Lexikon, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart 1961 – Joseph S. Haldane, J.G. Priestley, Respiration, Yale University Press, New Haven 1935 – Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Wein-

heim 1987 – Handbuch der Inneren Medizin, 2nd ed., 1925.

– Wilhelm Heepke, Die Leichenverbrennungs-Anstalten, C. Marhold, Halle 1905 – Yandell Henderson, Howard W. Haggard, Noxious Gases, Reinhold Publishing, New York

1943 – Joachim Hoffmann,Stalins Vernichtungskrieg , Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, Munich 1995 – Joachim Hoffmann,Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945, Theses & Dissertations Press,

Capshaw, AL, 2001 – K.A. Hofmann, Anorganische Chemie, Vieweg, Braunschweig 211973 – A.F. Holleman, N. Wiberg, Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie, de Gruyter, Berlin 1001985 – Gerd Honsik, Freispruch für Hitler , Burgenländischer Kulturverband, Vienna 1988 – Gerd Honsik,Schelm und Scheusal , Bright Rainbow, Madrid n.d. [1994] – Franziska Hundseder, Rechte machen Kasse, Knaur, Munich, May 1995

– Valérie Igounet, Histoire du négationnisme en France, Editions du Seuil, Paris 2000 – David Irving, Nuremberg. The Last Battle, Focal Point, London 1996 – Eberhard Jäckel, Jürgen Rohwer, Der Mord an den Juden im Zweiten Weltkrieg , Deutsche

Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1985 – Franz Kadell, Die Katyn Lüge, Herbig, Munich 1991 – Jürgen Kalthoff, Martin Werber, Die Händler des Zyklon B, VSA-Verlag, Hamburg 1998 – Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (ed.), Das Rudolf-Gutachten, Cromwell, London 1993 – Michael D. Kelleher, C. L. Kelleher, Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer , Praeger,

Westport, Conn., 1998 – Erich Kern,Meineid gegen Deutschland , Schütz, Pr. Oldendorf, 21971 – R.E. Kirk, D.F. Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 13, 3. ed., Wiley & Sons,

New York 1979 – Serge Klarsfeld (ed.), The Auschwitz Album. Lilly Jacob’s Album, New York 1980 – Ernst Klee, Willy Dreßen, Schöne Zeiten, S. Fischer, Frankfurt 1988 – Ernst Klee, Willy Dreßen, The Good Old Days, Free Press, New York 1991 – Heinrich Kliewe, Leitfaden der Entseuchung und Entwesung , F. Enke Verlag, Stuttgart 1951 – Alexander von Knieriem, Nürnberg. Rechtliche und menschliche Probleme, Klett, Stuttgart

1953 – Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rückerl et al. (eds.), Nationalsozialistische Mas-

sentötungen durch Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt 1983 – Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rückerl et al. (eds.), Nazi Mass Murder , Yale

University Press, New Haven 1993 – Herinrich Kruse, Leitfaden für die Ausbildung in der Desinfektion und Schädlingsbekämpfung ,

Muster-Schmidt, Göttingen 1948 – Barbara Kulaszka (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die? Report on the Evidence in the Canadian“False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel—1988, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1992




426

– Georg Kunike, Das ABC der Vorrats- und Hausschädlinge und ihre Bekämpfung , Theodor Weicher, Berlin 1941

– Landolt-Börnstein, Eigenschaften der Materie in ihren Aggregatzuständen, part 2, volume b, Lösungsmittelgleichgewichte I , Springer, Berlin 1962

– Landolt-Börnstein, Zahlen und Funktionen aus Physik, Chemie, Astronomie, Technik , volumeIV Technik , part 4b Wärmetechnik , Springer, Berlin 61972

– Hermann Langbein,Menschen in Auschwitz, Europaverlag, Vienna 1987 – Hermann Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt/Main 1965 – Hans Laternser, Die andere Seite im Auschwitzprozeß 1963/65, Seewald, Stuttgart 1966 – Robert Lenski,The Holocaust on Trial , Reporter Press, Decatur, Alabama 1990 – Robert Lenski, Der Holocaust vor Gericht , Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1996 – André Lettich,Trente-quatre mois dans les Camps de Concentration, Imprimerie Union

Coopérative, Tours, 1946 – Fredrick A. Leuchter, The Third Leuchter Report , Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1989 – Fredrick A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged Execution Gas Chambers at

Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland , Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988

– Fredrick A. Leuchter, The Fourth Leuchter Report , Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1991 – Salmen Lewenthal, Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft 1, Handschriften von Mitgliedern des

Sonderkommandos, Verlag Staatliches Museum Auschwitz, 1972 – Peter A. Lewis (ed.), Pigment Handbook , Vol. 1, Wiley and Sons, New York 1974 – Carlo Mattogno, La soluzione finale. Problemi e polemiche, Edizioni di Ar, Padua 1991; Au-

schwitz. La prima gasazione, Edizioni di Ar, Padua 1992 – Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The End of a Legend , Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa

1994 – Carlo Mattogno,„Sonderbehandlung“ ad Auschwitz. Genesi e Significato, Edizioni di Ar,

Padua 2001 – S. Moeschlin, Klinik und Therapie der Vergiftung , Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart 1986

– Andreas Molau (ed.), Opposition für Deutschland , Druffel-Verlag, Berg am Starnberger See1995 – Joachim Mrugowsky (ed.), Arbeitsanweisungen für Klinik und Laboratorium des Hygiene-

Instituts der Waffen-SS , 2nd ed., Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin and Vienna 1943. – G.-O. Müller, Lehrbuch der angewandten Chemie, vol. I, Hirzel, Leipzig 1986 – Bernd Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenäum, Frankfurt/Main 1968 – Ernst Neufert, Bauentwurfslehre, Ullstein Fachverlag, Frankfurt 1962 – Ernst Nolte, in his book Streitpunkte, Propyläen, Berlin 1993 – Miklos Nyiszli, Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account , Arcade Publishing, New York

1993 – Friedrich Oscar,Über Galgen wächst kein Gras, Erasmus-Verlag, Braunschweig 1950 – J. Oudar, Physics and Chemistry of Surfaces, Blackie & Son, Glasgow 1975

– Robert J. van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial , Indiana UniversityPress, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2002

– Robert van Pelt, Deborah Dwork, Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present , Yale University Press, NewHaven and London 1996

– J.H. Perry,Chemical Engineer’s Handbook , Wilmington Delaware 1949 – Gerhard Peters, Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung , Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart 1933 – Gerhard Peters, Die hochwirksamen Gase und Dämpfe in der Schädlingsbekämpfung , F. Enke

Verlag, Stuttgart 1942 – Léon Poliakov, Auschwitz, René Julliard, 1964 – Léon Poliakov, Harvest of Hate, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 1971 – Karl R. Popper, Objektive Erkenntnis, Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 41984

– Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gaschambers, Beate-Klarsfeld-Foundation, New York 1989 – Jean-Claude Pressac, Les crématoires d’Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse,



12. B IBLIOGRAPHY

427

CNSR, Paris 1993 – Jean-Claude Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes, Piper,

Munich 1994 – Proceedings of the Conference on Cyanide and the Environment , Colorado State University,

1984 – Franz Puntigam, Hermann Breymesser, Erich Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern zur Fleckfie-

berabwehr , Sonderveröffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes, Berlin 1943 – Paul Rassiner, Die Lüge des Odysseus, K.-H. Priester, Wiesbaden 1959 – Paul Rassiner,Was nun, Odysseus?, ibid. 1960 – Paul Rassiner, Das Drama der Juden Europas, H. Pfeiffer, Hannover 1965 – Paul Rassiner,Was ist Wahrheit?, Druffel, Leoni 81982 – Paul Rassiner, Debunking the Genocide Myth, The Noontide Press, Los Angeles, 1978 – Otto Ernst Remer (ed.), Die Zeit lügt!, Verlag Remer Heipke, Bad Kissingen 1992 – S. Röbert (ed.), Systematische Baustofflehre, volume 1, VEB Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin

41983 – Henry Rollet, Les chambres à gaz secret d’Etat , Les Editions de Minuit, Paris 1984

– Henri Roques, Günter Annthon, Der Fall Günter Deckert , DAGD/Germania Verlag, Weinheim1995

– Ludwig Rosenthal,“Endlösung der Judenfrage”, Massenmord oder “Gaskammerlüge”?,Verlag Darmstädter Blätter, Darmstadt 1979

– Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht , C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1984, p. 249 – Adalbert Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafpro-

zesse, dtv, Munich 1978 – Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Prozesse, C. F. Müller, Karlsruhe 1972 – Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht , C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, 21984 – Colin Rushton,Spectator in Hell. A British Soldier’s Extraordinary Story, Pharaoh Press,

Springhill (Berkshire) 1998

– Ingrid Sagel-Grande, H. H. Fuchs, Christiaan F. Rüter (eds.), Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, vol.21, University Press, Amsterdam 1979 – Walter N. Sanning, Die Auflösung des osteuropäischen Judentums, Grabert, Tübingen 1983 – Walter N. Sanning, The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, Institute for Historical Re-

view, Torrance, CA, 1983 – Otto von Schjerning, Handbuch der Ärztlichen Erfahrungen im Weltkrieg 1914/1918, volume

VII Hygiene, J. A. Barth Verlag, Leipzig 1922 – Wilhelm Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf , Cromwell, London 1994 – Robert F. Schmidt, Biomaschine Mensch, Piper, Munich 1979 – Gerhard Schoenberner (ed.), Wir haben es gesehen, Fourier, Wiesbaden 1981 – Shelly Shapiro (Ed.), Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter

Report , Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1990

– Yoram Sheftel,The Demjanjuk Affair. The Rise and Fall of the Show Trial , Victor Gollancz,London 1994

– Wilhelm Stäglich, Der Auschwitz-Mythos, Grabert Verlag, Tübingen 1979 – Wilhelm Stäglich,The Auschwitz Myth, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, CA, 1986 – Telford Taylor,The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, Little, Boston 1992 – Serge Thion (ed.), Vérité historique ou vérité politique?; La Vielle Taupe, Paris 1980 – Ralf Tiemann, Der Malmedy-Prozeß, Munin, Osnabrück 1990 – Stephen Trombley,The Execution Protocol , Crown Publishers, New York 1992 – Freda Utley, Kostspielige Rache, H.H. Nölke-Verlag, Hamburg 71952 – Freda Utley,The High Cost of Vengeance, Regnery, Chicago 1949 – Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1995

– Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Ber-chem, 1996

– Verein Deutscher Zementwerke, Zement Taschenbuch 1972/73, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1972




428

– Udo Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Prozeß, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsfor-schung, Vlotho 1981

– N.V. Waubke,Transportphänomene in Betonporen, Dissertation, Braunschweig 1966 – R.C. Weast (ed.), Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 66th Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton,

Florida 1986 – Jürgen Weber, Peter Steinbach (eds.), Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Strafverfahren?,

Olzog, Munich 1984 – H.-H. Wellhöner, Allgemeine und systematische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Springer

Verlag, Berlin 1988 – Karlhans Wesche, Baustoffe für tragende Bauteile, volume 1, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977;

volume 2, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1981 – C. Wilson,Wilson & Wilson’s Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 1B, Elsevier, Am-

sterdam 1960 – Winnacker-Küchler,Chemische Technologie, volume 2, Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 1982 – Wolfgang Wirth, Christian Gloxhuber, Toxikologie, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart 1985 – David S. Wyman (ed.), America and the Holocaust , volume 12, Garland, New York/London

1990 – G. Zimmermann (ed.), Bauschäden Sammlung , volume 4, Forum-Verlag, Stuttgart 1981

12.2. Periodical Articles – Anal. Chem. 56 (14) (1984), pp. 2819-2822: T. Ozeki, K. Matsumoto, S. Hikime

– Anal. Chim. Acta 3 (1949), pp. 558ff.

– 5 (1951), pp. 525-528

– 11 (1954), pp. 18-27: M. Kohn

– Analusis, 13 (4) (1985), pp. 185-190: C. Lapp, C. Wehrer, P. Laugel – Ann. Chim. 50 (1960), pp. 782-789: V. Carassiti, V. Balzani

– Annales d’Histoire Révisionniste 1 (1987) pp. 137-152: Robert Faurisson, “Comment les Bri-tanniques ont obtenu les aveux de Rudolf Hoess”

– 7 (1989), pp. 212f.: Gérard Roubeix, Letter to the Editor

– Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, 14(8) (1938) pp. 98f.: Gerhard Peters, “ Eine moderne Eisen-bahn-Entwesungsanlage”

– Arbeitsschutz, 5(III) (1942), pp. 167f.: Gerhard Peters, “Gefahrlose Anwendung der hochgiftigen Blausäure in Entlausungskammern”

– Bild , Nov. 20, 2001; ; April 11, 2002, p. 2

– blick nach rechts, June 2000: Thomas Pfeiffer – Cement and Concrete Research, 11 (1981), pp. 351-362: H.A. El-Sayed

– Chicago Daily Tribune, Feb. 23-26, 28, 29, 1948; March 12; Sept. 13, 1949

– Corriere della Sera, Nov. 21, 2001, p. 35.

– Dachauer Hefte, 7(7) (November 1991), pp. 230-241: Georges Wellers, “ Der Leuchter-Bericht über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz”

– Daily News, Washington, Jan. 9, 1949

– Das Gas- und Wasserfach, in: Gas • Erdgas, 130 (1989), pp. 474-484: D. Maier, K. Czurda, G.Gudehus

– Der praktische Desinfektor , September 1941, pp. 93-96: Gerhard Peters and W. Rasch, “ Die

Blausäure als Entlausungsmittel in Begasungskammern” – Deutsche Farben-Z. 5 (1951), pp. 419ff.: E. Elsermann

– 6 (1952), p. 231.: R. Beck



12. B IBLIOGRAPHY

429

– Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 28(1-4) (1980), pp. 12-15; 17-21; 17-21; 25-31:Walter N. Sanning, “ Die europäischen Juden. Eine technische Studie zur zahlenmäßigen Ent-wicklung im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Teil 1-4”

– 36(4) (1988), pp. 4-10: Robert Faurisson, “ Zum Zündel-Prozeß in Toronto, Teil 2. Vor-

geschichte—Ablauf—Folgen” – 39(2) (1991), pp. 13-17: Wolfgang Häberle, “ Zu Wegners Kritik am Leuchter-Gutachten”

– 39(2) (1991), pp. 9-13: Wolfgang Schuster, “Technische Unmöglichkeiten bei Pressac”

– 41(2) (1993), pp. 16-24: Ernst Gauss, “Chemische Wissenschaft zur Gaskammerfrage”

– 42(2) (1994), pp. 25f.: Germar Rudolf, “Über die frei erfundene Expertenmeinung der ‘dpa’”

– 43(1) (1995) pp. 22-26: Germar Rudolf, “ Leuchter-Gegengutachten: Ein Wissenschaftlicher Betrug?”

– 44(2) (1996), pp. 24f.: Wilhelm Stromberger, “Was war die ‘Sonderbehandlung’ in Ausch-witz?”

– 44(4) (1996), pp. 9f.: IDN, “‘Appell der 500’ vor Landtag ” – Die Naturwissenschaften, 16(2) (1928), pp. 17-23: O. Hecht, “ Blausäuredurchgasungen zur Schädlingsbekämpfung ”

– Die Welt , March 29, 1994; April 5, 1995; May 15, 1995: “Unterstützen Unternehmer die rechtsextremen Szene?”

– Die Woche, Oct. 7, 1993, p. 8

– Die Zeit , no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104; no. 40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90: Till Bastian; April 15,1993, p. 44; Dec. 31, 1993, p. 51

– dpa news release on March 28, 1994, published in the German daily newspapers on March 29,30, 31, 1994.

– East European Sci. Abs. 5 (1969), pp. 84f.: E.F. Zhel’vis, Y.M. Glazman – Farbe und Lack , 64 (1958), pp. 130-135: E. Herrmann

– Färg och Lack , 3 (1957), pp. 85-108: E. Gratzfeld

– Focus no. 17/1994, pp. 118, 120

– Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , August 15, 1994, p. 21: Patrick Bahners, “Objektive Selbst- zerstörung ”; March 11, 1995, p. 8; May 6, 1995; June 10, 1996, p. 14; April 11, 2002, p. 2

– Frankfurter Rundschau, March 30, 1994; April 11, 2002, p. 2

– Gäubote/Südwestpresse-Verbund , May 6, 1996

– Gesundheits-Ingenieur , July 19, 1941, pp. 399-404: Friedrich Konrich, “Über die Sanierung- sanstalten der deutschen Kriegsgefangenenlager ”

– 66(15) (1943), S. 174ff.: Ludwig Gaßner, “Verkehrshygiene und Schädlingsbekämpfung ” – 67(2) (1944), pp. 47-56: Franz Puntigam, “ Die Durchgangslager der Arbeitseinsatzverwal-tung als Einrichtungen der Gesundheitsvorsorge”

– 67(6) (1944), pp. 139-180: Franz Puntigam, “ Raumlösungen von Entlausungsanlagen”

– 67(7) (1944), p. 179: Emil Wüstinger, “Vermehrter Einsatz von Blausäure- Entlausungskammern”

– Gesundheitswesen und Desinfektion, 65(8) (1973), pp. 115-127; 65(9) (1973), pp. 129-143: W.Hagen, “ Krieg, Hunger und Pestilenz in Warschau 1939-1943”

– Glap. Hem. Tehnol. Bosne Hercegovine, 23-24 (1977, Vol. Date 1976), pp. 7-13: F. Krleza, M.Avlijas, G. Dokovic

– Hamburger Abendblatt , May 27, 2000: Günther Hoerbst “ Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1998/99” – Hamburger Morgenpost , Nov. 14, 2000

– Hazard. Ind. Waste 21 (1989), pp. 282-290: M.D. Gurol, J.H. Woodman




430

– Historische Tatsache no. 42, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1990:U. Walendy

– no. 60, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1993: Udo Walendy

– Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff , 32 (1974), pp. 108-114: D. Grosser, E. Roßmann, “ Blausäuregas

als bekämpfendes Holzschutzmittel für Kunstobjekte” – Informationen der Gesellschaft für politische Aufklärung , Innsbruck, June 1991, no. 29: Brigit-

te Bailer-Galanda

– Inorg. Chem. 1 (1962), pp. 337-342: M.B. Robin

– 1 (1962), pp. 587-591: J. Jordan, G.J. Ewing

– 9 (1970), pp. 2019ff.: R.M. Izatt, G.D. Watt, C.H. Bartholomew, J.J. Christensen

– 9 (1970), pp. 2512-2516: R.E. Wilde, S.N. Ghosh, B.J. Marshall

– 16 (1977), pp. 2704-2710: H.J. Buser, D. Schwarzenbach, W. Peter, A. Ludi

– J. Appl. Chem. USSR, 74(1)(1974), pp. 139-142: N.G. Chen

– J. Chem. Soc. 1963, pp. 1120-1125: J.F. Duncan

– J. Ind. Chem. Soc. 28 (1951), pp. 221-224: A.K. Bhattacharya

– 28 (1951), pp. 703-709: R.S. Saxena

– J. Inorg. Chem. USSR, 1 (1956), pp. 72ff.: I.V. Tananaev, M.A. Glushkova, G.B. Seifer

– J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 28 (1966), pp. 2589-2598: L. Moggi, F. Bolletta, V. Balzani, F. Scandola

– 29 (1967), pp. 1637-1642: M. Andrew Alich, D.T. Haworth, M.F. Johnson

– J. Jap. Soc. Col. Mat., 34 (1961), pp. 5-8; L. Müller-Focken, Farbe und Lack , 84 (1987), pp.489-492: H. Watanabe

– J. Réch. Cent. Nat. Réch. Sci. 4 (1952), pp. 184ff.: S. Barbezat

– Jour J , December 12, 1988, pp. I-X: Jean-Claude Pressac

– Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho, 1990, 3 p.: H. Tada, M. Kunio, H. Kawahara – Killoy Sentinel (New South Wales, Australia), May 1, 1997

– Kreiszeitung – Böblinger Bote, November 23, 1994; March 29, 1995; May 10, 1995; June 24,1995; Nov. 16, 1995: dpa, “ Dilettantische Kammerjäger ”; May 6, 1996; June 27, 1996

– Kurier , Aug. 30, 1992, p. 20: “Wenn Felsen fallen”

– L’Express, 19.-25. January 1995: Eric Conan, “ Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal ” – Le Monde Juif , no. 97, January-March 1980, p. 2: Dino A. Brugioni, Robert G. Poirier; no.

107, Juli-September 1982, pp. 91-131: Jean-Claude Pressac

– Le Monde, Dec. 29, 1978, p. 8: Robert Faurisson, “‘Le problème des chambres à gaz’ ou ‘larumeur d’Auschwitz’ ”; Feb 21, 1979: Robert Faurisson; Sept. 19, 1989; Nov. 20, 2001

– Le Quotidien de la Réunion, June 25, 1998: “Un expert évoque la llustra de gaz mortel dansla grotte”

– Liberty Bell , 12/1994, pp. 36f.

– Life, Dec. 22, 1947, p. 31: “ How to get rid of termites”

– Los Angeles Times, Jan. 7, 2000: Kim Murphy, “ Danger in Denying Holocaust?”

– Märkische Allgemeinen, May 14, 1993

– Münchner Medizinische Wochenschrift , 89(22) (1942), pp. 483-488: R. Wohlrab, “ Fleckty- phusbekämpfung im Generalgouvernement ”

– Nation—The Orange County Register , Jan. 9, 2000, News 11

– New Yorker Staats-Zeitung , March 13-19, 1999, p. 3: Bettina Freitag, “ Henker warten nicht ”,

– Newsweek , November 8, 1993, p. 75 – Osteuropa, 52(5) (2002), pp. 631-641: Fritjof Meyer, “ Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz”

– Our Sunday Visitor , USA, June 14, 1959, 15



12. B IBLIOGRAPHY

431

– Paint Ind. Mag. 69(11) (1954), pp. 33f.: H. Beakes

– Polyhedron 4(11) (1985), pp. 1887-1890: G. Stochel, Z. Stasicka

– Rheinpfalz Oct. 18, 1999: “Gesuchter deutscher Neonazi offenbar in Großbritannien”

– Revue d’Histoire Révisionniste, 3 (1990/91), pp 65-154: Robert Faurisson, “ Auschwitz : Tech-

nique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989) ou bricolage et ‘gazouillages’ à Auschwitzet Birkenau selon J.-C. Pressac (1989)”

– Rheinischer Merkur , April 16, 1999

– Rivarol , March 22, 1996, p. 8; April 12, 1996, p. 4 – Schriftenreihe Pigmente Nr. 50, Degussa AG, Frankfurt 1985

– Searchlight , Dec. 1999, p. 13: Graeme Atkinson, “ Auschwitz liar hides out in Britain”

– Sleipnir 1(2) (1995): Germar Rudolf, “ Kein Brief ins Gefängnis?”

– 1(3) (1995) pp. 29-33: Germar Rudolf and J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, “ Brief-wechsel ”

– 4/95, insider back cover

– Staatsbriefe, 6(6) (1995), pp. 6-8: Germar Rudolf, “ Naht ein deutscher Bürgerkrieg?”

– 6(7) (1995): Jochen Lober

– 6(12) (1995), pp. 10-15: Germar Rudolf, “ In der Bundesacht ” – 7(1) (1996), Verlag Castel del Monte, Munich, pp. 4-8: Germar Rudolf, “Webfehler im

Rechtsstaat ” – 7(2-3) (1996), pp. 23-30: Germar Rudolf, “ Die Rolle der Presse im Fall Germar Rudolf ”

– Storia illustrata, 261 (1979), pp. 15-35: Robert Faurisson, “ Le camere a gas non sono maiesistite”

– Stuttgarter Nachrichten, June 14, 1995; Oct. 21, 1999, p. 4: “ Holocaust-Leugner im englischenVersteck ”

– Stuttgarter Zeitung , March 29, 1994; Nov. 23, 1994; Jan. 27, 1995; June 13, 1995. p. 2; June24, 1995: Sonnhild Maier; April 11, 2002, p. 2

– Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 29, 1994; May 6, 1995; June 24, 1995

– Südwestpresse-Verbund , March 29, 1994

– Sunday Pictorial , Great Britain, Jan. 23, 1949.

– Sunday Telegraph, Sept. 24, 1989; Oct. 17, 1999: Jessica Berry, Chris Hastings, “German neo- Nazi fugitive is found hiding in Britain”; October 31, 1999: Berry, Hastings, “Germany pur- sues Rudolf extradition”; Jan. 16, 2000: Berry, Hastings, “ Neo-nazi accused of ‘racial hatred’ goes on the run

– Sydney Jewish News, Nov. 5, 1999

– tageszeitung , March 30, 1994; April 11, 2002, p. 2 – The Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1990

– The Citizen, South Africa, June 24, 1995, p. 8

– The Globe and Mail , Sept. 18, 1989

– The Hastings and St. Leonards Observer , Oct. 22, 1999: James Clarke, “ Fleeing neo-nazi usesbase in Hastings”; March 31, 2000: Clarke, “ Escaped Neo-nazi still hiding in Hastings”

– The Independent. Oct. 18, 1999: Jessica Berry and Chris Hastings, “German neo-Nazi fugitiveis found hiding in Britain”

– The Jerusalem Post International Edition, May 5, 1990

– The Journal of Historical Review 1(1) (1980) pp. 23ff.: Robert Faurisson, “The Mechanics of

Gassing ” – 1(2) (1980), pp. 103-114: Robert Faurisson, “The ‘problem of the gas chambers’ ”




432

– 2(4) (1981), pp. 311ff.: Robert Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to be Physically Inconceivable”

– 2(4) (1981), pp. 319-373: Robert Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers: Truth or Lie?”

– 3(4) (1982), pp. 371-405: Arthur R. Butz, “Context and perspective in the ‘Holocaust’ con-

troversy” – 7(1) (1986), pp. 73-94: Friedrich P. Berg, “The German Delousing Chambers”

– 7(4) (1986), pp. 389 ff.: Robert Faurisson, “ How the British obtained the confessions of Ru-dolf Hoess”

– 8(4) (1988), pp. 433-481: Friedrich Paul Berg, “Typhus and the Jews”

– 11(1) (1991), pp. 25ff.: Robert Faurisson, “ Pressac, Jean-Claude. Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers. (part 1).”

– 11(2) (1991) pp. 217-227: Mark Weber, “‘Jewish soap’ ” – 11(2) (1991), pp. 133ff.: Robert Faurisson, “ Pressac, Jean-Claude. Auschwitz: Technique

and operation of the gas chambers. (part 2).”

– 11(2) (1991), pp. 207-216: “ An official Polish report on the Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ ” – 12(2) (1992), pp. 248ff.: Paul Grubach, “The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to

Jean-Claude Pressac’s Critique”

– 12(4) (1992), pp. 421-492 (various articles)

– 13(2) (1993), pp. 11-13: David Cole, “ A Jewish Revisionist’s Visit to Auschwitz”

– 17(2) (1998), pp. 34ff.: Mark Weber, “ Probing Look at ‘Capital Punishment Industry’ Af- firms Expertise of Auschwitz Investigator Leuchter ”

– 18(3) (1999), p. 4: Mark Weber, “ High Frequency Delousing Facilities at Auschwitz”

– 19(6) (2000), pp. 12ff.: Arthur R. Butz, “ Historical Past vs. Political Present ”

– The New York Times, Feb. 23, 25, 29; March 6; July 30; Oct. 7, 1948; Jan. 7, March 2, 5; May

5, 1949; Oct, 13, 1990; June 16, 1994, p. A23; October 6, 1994, p. A20 – The News & Observer , Raleigh, North Carolina, June 11, 1994, p. 14A; June 19, 1994, p. A1:

Bill Krueger, “ Lawson’s Final Moments”

– The Plain Dealer , Dec. 19, 1999, p. 30A

– The Revisionist , 1(1) (2003), pp. 3-12: Michael Gärtner, Werner Rademacher, “Ground Water in the Area of the POW camp Birkenau”

– 1(1) (2003), pp. 13-16: Carlo Mattogno: “‘Incineration Pits’ and Ground Water Level in Birkenau”

– 1(1) (2003), pp. 17-23: Robert Faurisson, “ How many deaths at Auschwitz?”

– 1(1) (2003), pp. 23-30: Germar Rudolf, “Cautious Mainstream Revisionism”

– 1(1) (2003), pp. 30-37: Carlo Mattogno, “ Auschwitz. The new Revisions by Fritjof Meyer ” – The Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 17, 1999: Jessica Berry and Chris Hastings, “German neo-Nazi

fugitive is found hiding in Britain”

– Tranp. Inst. Met. Finish., 35 (1958), pp. 353-384; 59 (1981), pp. 35-39: J.M. Kape, E.C. Mills

– Trans. Far. Soc. 53 (1957), pp. 1659-1661: B.N. Gosh, K.C. Ray

– Ukrainskii Khim. Zh. 35 (1969), pp. 766ff.: E.F. Zhel’vis, Y.M. Glazman

– Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 1(1) (1997), pp. 2-5: Wolfgang Lambrecht,“ Zyklon B – eine Ergänzung ” – 1(1) (1997), pp. 34-37: VHO, “ Zur Wissenschaftsfreiheit in Deutschland ”

– 1(1) (1997), pp. 6ff.: Conrad Grieb, “ Der selbstassistierte Holocaust-Schwindel ”

– 1(1) (1997), pp. 24f.: Michael Gärtner, “Vor 25 Jahren: Ein anderer Auschwitzprozess” – 1(2) (1997), pp. 102-104: Bertrand Clair, “ Revisionistische Gutachten”



12. B IBLIOGRAPHY

433

– 1(2) (1997), pp. 104-108: Germar Rudolf, “ Zur Kritik am Rudolf Gutachten”

– 1(3) (1997), pp. 139-190: Germar Rudolf, “ Auschwitz-Kronzeuge Dr. Hans Münch im Ge- spräch”

– 1(4) (1997), p. 226-243: Samuel Crowell, “Technik und Arbeitsweise deutscher Gasschutz-

bunker im Zweiten Weltkrieg ” – 1(4) (1997), pp. 224f.: La Vielle Taupe/Pierre Guillaume, “ Rudolf Gutachten: ‘psychopa-

thologisch und gefährlich’. Über die Psychopathologie einer Erklärung ” – 2(1) (1998), pp. 2-12: Michael Gärtner, Werner Rademacher, “Grundwasser im Gelände des

KGL Birkenau (Auschwitz)”

– 2(1) (1998), pp. 13-22: Carlo Mattogno, “ Die ‘ Gasprüfer ’ von Auschwitz”

– 2(2) (1998), pp. 87-105: Hans Jürgen Nowak, “ Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Ausch-witz”

– 2(3) (1998), pp. 226ff.: Mark Weber, “ Ein prüfender Blick in Amerikas ‘ Todesstrafen-Industrie’ bestätigt das Leuchter-Gutachten”

– 2(4) (1998), pp. 311ff.: Richard Widmann, “ Holocaust-Literatur versus Holocaust-Wissenschaft ” – 2(4) (1998), pp. 261-272: Hans Lamker, “ Die Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz,

Teil 2”

– 2(4) (1998), pp. 248-261: Hans Jürgen Nowak, W. Rademacher, “‘Gasdichte’ Türen in Au- schwitz”

– 3(1) (1999), pp. 77-82: Germar Rudolf, “ Das Rudolf Gutachten in der Kritik, Teil 2”

– 3(2) (1999), p. 208: Rudi Zornig, “ Rechtsanwalt wegen Stellung von Beweisantrag verur-teilt ”

– 3(3) (1999), pp. 256-267: Werner Rademacher, “ Die Wandlungen der Totenzahl von Au- schwitz”

– 3(3) (1999), pp. 268-272: Robert Faurisson: “Wieviele Tote gab es in Auschwitz?

– 4(1) (2000), pp. 104f.: Werner Rademacher, “ In memoriam Dipl.-Ing. Dr. techn. Walter Schreiber ”

– 4(1) (2000), pp. 33-50: Germar Rudolf, “Gutachter und Urteilsschelte”

– 4(1) (2000), pp. 25-33: Carlo Mattogno, “ Architektonische Stümpereien zweier Plagiatoren”

– 4(2) (2000), pp. 152-158: Carlo Mattogno, “ Leichenkeller von Birkenau: Luftschutzräumeoder Entwesungskammern?

– 4(3&4) (2000), pp. 284-330: Samuel Crowell, “ Bombenschutzeinrichtungen in Birkenau: Eine Neubewertung ”

– 4(3&4) (2000), pp. 410-415: Vincent Reynouard, “ Deutsch-Französische Völker- Freundschaft ”

– 4(3&4) (2000), p. 457: “Verteidiger Rieger siegt in Verfahren wegen ‘unzulässiger Verteidi-gung’”

– 5(4) (2001), pp. 446-449: Reinhold Schwertfeger, “Gab es Gaskammern im Altreich?”

– 6(2) (2002), pp. 139-145: Carlo Mattogno, “ Die ‘Entdeckung’ des ‘Bunkers 1’ von Birke-nau:alte und neue Betrügereien”

– 6(2) (2002), pp. 146-158; Manfred Gerner, Michael Gärtner, Hans Jürgen Nowak, “ Die Kos-ten von Auschwitz

– 6(2) (2002), pp. 176-190: Günther Herzogenrath-Amelung: “Gutachten im Asylverfahrenvon Germar Rudolf ”

– 6(3) (2002), pp. 284-304: Carlo Mattogno, “ Keine Löcher, keine Gaskammer(n)” – 6(3) 2002), pp. 349-354: Robert H. Countess, “Van Pelts Plädoyer gegen den gesunden

Menschenverstand ”




434

– 6(3) 2002), pp. 354-359: Paul Grubach, “Greuelpropaganda des Ersten Weltkriegs und der Holocaust ”

– 6(4) (2002), pp. 421-424: Carlo Mattogno, “‘Verbrennungsgruben’ und Grundwasserstand in Birkenau”

– Wiesbadener Kurier , 8./9. and 13. May 1993 – Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Z XXX (1994), pp. 17-27: Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala,

Jerzy Labedz

– Z. anorg. allg. Chem. 333 (1964), pp. 235-247: E. Fluck, W. Kerler, W. Neuwirth

– Z. Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten, 107 (1927), pp. 798-813; ibid., 109 (1929), pp. 201-212:L. Schwarz, Walter Deckert

– 108 (1928), pp. 108-123: W.A. Uglow

– Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie, 21(4) (1935), pp. 547-559: Gerhard Peters, W. Gan-ter, “ Zur Frage der Abtötung des Kornkäfers mit Blausäure”

– Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung , 10/11 (1940), pp. 191-196:

Gerhard Peters, Emil Wüstinger, “ Entlausung mit Zyklon-Blausäure in Kreislauf- Begasungskammern. Sach-Entlausung in Blausäure-Kammern”

– (1941), pp. 36-45: K. Naumann: “ Die Blausäurevergiftung bei der Schädlingsbekämpfung ”

– 33 (1941), p. 126.

– (1942), pp. 35f.: Richard Irmscher, “ Nochmals: ‘Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure beitiefen Temperaturen’ ”

– (1943), pp. 190-194: R. Queisner, “ Erfahrungen mit Filtereinsätzen und Gasmasken für hochgiftige Gase zur Schädlingsbekämpfung ”

12.3. Archival Documents – Alliied aerial photographs, National Archives Air Photo Library, Washington, D.C., RG 373

Can F 5367, exp. 3185; RG 373 Can B 8413, exp. 6V2

– APMO, BW 30/34, p. 40, 47, 78, 105; D-Z/Bau, nr. inw. 1967, pp. 231f., 246f.; Standort-Befehl, D-AuI-1, p. 46

– Tsentr Chranenija Istoriko-dokumental’nich Kollektsii (TCIDK, recently renamed to RossiskiiGosudarstvennii Vojennii Archiv, RGVA): 502-1: 26-117; 332-46/46a; 332-9/10; 333-145;336-94; 332-37; 332-86/90; 332-117/119; 332-219; 233-33/38; 322-219; 322-31; 332-175;332-28; 332-212; 149-135; 401; 336; 312-8; 316-431; 323-137; 335-3; 316-430; 26-21; 327-25/25a; 24-77; 24-33; 1-332-46a; 1-26-66; 238-10; 214; 22-19; 24

12.4. Internet Documents – APBnews.com, April 29, 2000

(www.apbnews.com/safetycenter/business/2000/04/29/safetycrime0429_01.html;www.apbnews.com/safetycenter/business/2000/04/29/safetycrime0429_doc.html

– Codoh, “ Revisionist Historian Suffers Savage Beating ”(www.codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/8909FAUR.HTML)

– Samuel Crowell, “Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in WWII: A Refuta-

tion of J.C. Pressac’s Criminal Traces” (www.codoh.com/incon/inconpressac.html) – Samuel Crowell, “ Defending Against the Allied Bombing Campaign: Air Raid Shelters and Gas Protection in Germany, 1939-1945” (www.codoh.com/incon/inconabr.html)



12. B IBLIOGRAPHY

435

– Samuel Crowell, “The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes: An Attempt at a Literary Analysis of the Holocaust Gassing Claim” (www.codoh.com/incon/inconshr123.html)

– Samuel Crowell, “ New Documents on Air Raid Shelters at Auschwitz Camp”(www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/documents/LSKeller/MoscowDocs.html)

– Samuel Crowell, “Comments on Mattogno’s critique of the bomb shelter thesis”(www.codoh.com/incon/inconscrmtgno.html)

– Samuel Crowell, “ Bomb Shelters in Birkenau: A Reappraisal ”,(www.codoh.com/incon/inconbsinbirk.html)

– Davis Colors (www.coloredconcrete.com/davis/Tech/03470.html)

– D.D. Desjardin: “ Kenneth Stern’s Critique of The Leuchter Report: A Critical Analysis”(www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nddd/ndddstern.html)

– D.D. Desjardin, “My Visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, May 30-31, 1996 ”, Interview mit F. Piper (www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nddd/ndddausch.html)

– Department of Justice National News Release, May 10, 1999

(www.osha.gov/media/oshnews/may99/national-19990510.html) – Robert Faurisson, “Sur Auschwitz, lentement, la vérité reprend ses droits”(www.abbc.com/aaargh/fran/archFaur/RF950204.html)

– Michael Gärtner, Werner Rademacher, “Ground Water in the Area of the POW camp Birke-nau” (www.vho.org/GB/c/WW/GroundWater.html)

– Richard J. Green, “The Chemistry of Auschwitz”, May 10, 1998 (www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry)

– Richard J. Green, “ Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues”, March 25, 1998 (www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue)

– Richard J. Green, Jamie McCarthy, “Chemistry is Not the Science”, May 2, 1999(www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science)

– Conrad Grieb, “The Self-assisted Holocaust Hoax” (www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvself.html)

– Manfred Köhler, “ Pressac and the German Public”(www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Koehler.html)

– Carlo Mattogno, “Auschwitz 1270 to the Present” (www.codoh.com/granata/irving-eng.html)

– Carlo Mattogno, “Morgue Cellars of Birkenau: Gas Shelters or Disinfesting Chambers?”(www.codoh.com/granata/leichen.html)

– Merck, “The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. Section 13. Infectious Diseases. Chapter 159. Rickettsial Diseases” (www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section13/chapter159/159a.htm)

– Nizkor (www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar29.html)

– Charles Provan, “ No Holes? No Holocaust? A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller 1

of Krematorium II at Birkenau” (www.revisingrevisionism.com) – Report , Minnesota State University, “Suicide fumes sicken nine Iowa students”, Oct. 10, 1998

(www.mankato.msus.edu/depts/reporter/reparchive/10_15_98/campuscope.html)

– Germar Rudolf, “ A Fraudulent Attempt to Refute Mr. Death”(www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Fraudulent.html)

– Germar Rudolf, “ About true and false Perceptions” (www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/percept.html)

– Germar Rudolf, “Cardinal Questions about Contemporary History”(www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq)

– Germar Rudolf, “Character Assassins” (www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html)

– Germar Rudolf, “Counter-Leuchter Expert Report: Scientific Trickery?”

(www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html) – Germar Rudolf, “Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt ”

(www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html)




436

– Germar Rudolf, “Critique of the ‘Findings on Justification’ by Judge Gray”(www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CritiqueGray.html)

– Germar Rudolf, “Critique of Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie”(www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html)

– Germar Rudolf, “Some considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau”(www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html)

– Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Case (www.vho.org/GB/Books/trc)

– Herbert Verbeke (ed.), “ Auschwitz: Plain Facts” (www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf)

12.5. Courts Files, Governmental Documents – Baden-Württemberg, Administrative Court, ref. IX 1496/79, decision on March 18, 1981

– Berlin, Public Attorney’s Office I in the District Court, ref. 81 Js 1385/95

– Böblingen, County Court, ref. 9 Gs 521/94; ref. 9(8) Gs 228/97 – Bonn, Bundesprüfstelle, letter to Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, May 12, 1998, ref. Pr. 273/98

UK/Schm (www.vho.org/censor/BPjS_vho.html); ref. No. 5490 (V); Ref. 5715(V

– Cracow, The Trial of Höß, volume 11a. – Federal Constitutional Court, Germany, ref. 1 BvR 408f./83

– Federal Supreme Court, Germany, ref. 1 StR 18/96; ref. 5 StR 485/01

– Frankfurt (Main), Public Prosecutor at the District Court, “Strafsache beim Schwurgericht Frankfurt (Main) gegen Baer und Andere wegen Mordes”, ref. 4 Js 444/59

– Frankfurt, Jury Court, ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63 (Auschwitz trial)

– Frankfurt, City of, Letter to the Bundesprüfstelle, April 27, 1998, ref. 51.16 schu

– Hagen, Jury Court, verdict from July 24, 1970, ref. 11 Ks 1/70, p. 97 – London, Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, David John Cawdell Irving

vs. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 113: Robert Jan vanPelt, Pelt Report, introduced as evidence; Judgment of Judge Gray

– Mannheim, District Court, ref. (13) 5 Ns 67/96

– Munich, County Court, ref. 451 Cs 112 Js 3326/90; ref. 432 Cs 113 Js 3619/90; ref. 812 Gs16/98

– Munich, Public Prosecution I, ref. 112 Js 11282/98

– Nuremberg Documents: NI-9098 (DEGESCH, Acht Vorträge aus dem Arbeitsgebiet der DEGESCH , 1942); 511-USSR; NI-9912(1) ( Richtlinien für die Anwendung von Blausäure (Zy-

klon) zur Ungeziefervertilgung (Entwesung), Gesundheitsanstalt des Protektorats Böhmen undMähren, Prag o.J.); NI-11 396; 3868-PS (IMT volume 33, pp. 275ff.)

– Stuttgart, County Court, ref. 13 K 1329/94

– Stuttgart, District Court, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, Verdict and investigative files

– Stuttgart, Labor Court, Rudolf v. Max- Planck- Institute for Solid State Research, ref. 14 Ca6663/93

– Stuttgart, Public Prosecutor, Criminal indictment, 19. April 1994, ref. 4 Js 34417/93

– Tübingen, County Court, ref. 4 Gs 173/95; ref. 4 Ls 15 Js 1535/95; ref. 4 Gs 312/2000

– U.S. Senate, Congressional Record-Senate No. 134, Sept. 26, 1949, pp. 10397ff.

– Vienna, District Court, trial against Gerd Honsik, April 4., April 30, May 4, 1992, ref. 20e Vr

14184 and Hv 5720/90; transcript of the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. G. Jagschitz, 3.-5. hearingdays

– Vienna, District Court, trial against Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, ref. 20 Vr 6575/72 (Hv56/72)



12. B IBLIOGRAPHY

437

– Weinheim, County Court, ref. 2 Ds 11 Js 5428/97

– Deutsches Reich, “ Anwendung von hochgiftigen Stoffen zur Schädlingsbekämpfung durch dieWaffen-SS ”, Rund-Erlaß des Reichsministers für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft vom April 3,

1941 – Deutsche Reichsbahn Eisenbahnverkehrsordnung (EVO, German Reich railway regulations),annex C to §54 EVO, Vorschriften über die nur bedingt zur Beförderung zugelassenen Gegen-stände vom 1. Okt. 1938

– DIN: 3181 part 1 (draft); DIN 4108, part 3 to 5; 38 405, section D 13 & 14; 55,943, 55,945

– Entseuchungs- und Entwesungsvorschrift für die Wehrmacht , H. Dv. 194, M. Dv. Nr. 277, L.Dv. 416, Reichsdruckerei, Berlin 1939.

– Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften, Atemschutz-Merkblatt , Carl Hey-manns Verlag, Cologne Oct. 1981

– Robert Kühn, Karl Birett, Merkblätter Gefährlicher Arbeitsstoffe, ecomed, Landsberg 1990:Technische Regeln für Gefahrstoffe, TRGS 512, Begasungen, BArbBl. Nr. 10/1989

– Franz Puntigam, Hermann Breymesser, Erich Bernfus, Blausäuregaskammern zur Fleckfie-berabwehr , Sonderveröffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes, Berlin 1943

– Willibald Schütz, “ Explosionsgefährlichkeit gasförmiger Entwesungsmittel ”, Reichsarbeits-blatt , Teil III (Arbeitsschutz no. 6), no. 17/18 (1943), pp. 198-207

– War Department, Hydrocyanic-Acid-Gas Mask , US Government Printing Office, Washington1932

– War Department, Technical Manual No. 3-205, US Government Printing Office, Washington1941

12.6. Video, Audio, and Unpublished Documents – Amnesty International, Botched Executions, Fact Sheet December 1996, Amnesty International

USA, 322 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10001-4808.

– Hellmuth Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter to Bundesprüfstelle, Munich, Oct. 10,1989

– Hellmuth Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter to Bundesprüfstelle, Munich, November 1989

– Hellmuth Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter, Munich, March 20, 1992

– Auschwitz State Museum, letter to Joel P. Hayward, ref. I-8523/26/2120/ 91, dated May 7,

1991 – Willy Dreßen, Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltung Baden-Württemberg, Ludwigsburg,

letters to Karl Philipp, ref. 110 AR 916/89, July 26, 1989, and Oct. 11, 1989

– Dieter Ebeling’s response to numerous queries to the Stuttgarter dpa bureau, April 13, 1994

– Dr. Ulrich Goll, Ministry of Justice of Baden-Württemberg, letter to Parliament Baden-Württemberg, ref. 4104—III/185, Sept. 23, 1996

– IHR, 66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust , flyer, Institute for Historical Review, CostaMesa, undated.

– Jan Konieczny, The Soviets, But Not the Western Allies, Should Have Bombed the AuschwitzCamp, Polish Historical Society, unpublished paper.

– Wolfgang Lambrecht, Otto Karl, Das Handelsprodukt Zyklon B, unpublished manuscript – Fredrick A. Leuchter, Boston, FAX to H. Herrmann dated April, 20, 1992

– Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz, B. Trzcinska, Expert Opinion, Prof. Dr. Jan




438

Sehn Institute for Forensic Reserach, department for toxicology, Cracow, Sept. 24, 1990

– Errol Morris “Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.” documentary, VHSvideo.

– Pfeiffer, Hansa Luftbild GmbH, aerial photographic analysis of Allied photograph dated Aug.

25, 1944, letter dated July 17, 1991 – Germar Rudolf, press release, April 8, 1994

– Dr. Scheel, Bonn, German Foreign Office, letter to Mr. Stuparek, Jan. 8, 1979, ref. 214-E-Stuparek

– Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Expert Opinions, Department for Forensic Toxicol-ogy, Cracow, letter to W. Wegner, undated (winter 91/92)

– AV Tuisconia Königsberg zu Bonn, written decision of the Conduct Court against Germar Rudolf, Aug. 20, 1995

– University of Stuttgart, letter exchange between with Germar Rudolf (vho.org/Authors/UniStgt.html and vho.org/Authors/RudolfUniStgt.html)

– Dr. Weber of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior, Letter to Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, Oct.13, 1998, ref. IF1-1335.31-1

– H. Winkler, Degussa AG, letter to this author, June 18, 1991.

– ARD Panorama, May 1995

– ARD Report , April 11, 1994

– ARD Tagesthemen, June 6, 1996

– BBC, March 28, 2000, news report about G. Rudolf

– BRT 1 (Belgian Television), Panorama, April 27, 1995

– David Cole, “ David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper, Director, Auschwitz State Museum”

, VHS Video, distributed by CODOH, P.O. Box 439016, San Diego, CA 92143, USA – ITV (southeast England), March 29, 2000, news report about G. Rudolf

– Süddeutscher Rundfunk, news reports on G. Rudolf in all four afternoon radio programs on Nov. 25, 1994

– Süddeutscher Rundfunk 3, June 23, 1995, 13:30 hours

– Südwest 3 TV station, Landesschau, December 27, 1994, report on Germar Rudolf, availableas VHS entitled “ Neo-Nazi” distributed by the Süddeutscher Rundfunk

– ZDF heute, June 23, 1995



439

13. Lists

13.1. List of TablesPage

Table 1: Arguments relating to the Zyklon B introduction col-umns................................................................................... 134

Table 2: Equipment and suitability of actual or alleged ‘gaschambers’........................................................................... 146

Table 3: Physical Properties of HCN............................................... 156Table 4: Formation of Iron Blue ...................................................... 169Table 5: Dissociation constants and solubility products of iron

compounds......................................................................... 175Table 6: Composition of Portland cement ....................................... 183Table 7: Absorption of hydrogen cyanide by various building

materials............................................................................. 187Table 8: Effect of various concentrations of hydrogen cyanide

in air upon human beings................................................... 192Table 9: Reduction of O2 content in air-tight morgue 1 as afunction of time.................................................................. 214

Table 10: Amount of hydrogen cyanide as a function of execu-tion time............................................................................. 215

Table 11: Some values of the ventilation efficiency of a hypo-thetical homicidal ‘gas chamber’, with Zyklon B re-maining in the chamber...................................................... 226

Table 12: Some values of the ventilation efficiency of ahypothetical homicidal ‘gas chamber’, with Zyklon Bremoved from chamber...................................................... 226

Table 13: Quasi-stationary concentrations of HCN in masonry in percent of saturation, as a function of daily exposuretime to HCN....................................................................... 229

Table 14: Maximally admissible concentration of harmful compound for protection filters ................................................ 230

Table 15: Minimum break through times for filters........................... 231

Table 16: Evaluation of eyewitnesses ................................................ 236Table 17: Cyanide concentrations in the masonry of ‘gas cham-




440

bers’/disinfestation chambers according to F.A.Leuchter ............................................................................. 249

Table 18: Cyanide concentrations in the masonry of ‘gas cham-

bers’/disinfestation chambers according to the JanSehn Institute for Forensic Research.................................. 251Table 19: Cyanide concentrations in the masonry of ‘gas cham-

bers’/disinfestation chambers according to G. Rudolf....... 254Table 20: Analysis results from the Institut Fresenius and the

Institut für Umweltanalytik ................................................ 258Table 21: Test sample preparation and fumigation............................ 267Table 22: Cyanide concentrations in the masonry of ‘gas cham-

bers’/ disinfestation chambers according to J.C. Ball ........ 268Table 23: Orders of magnitude of analytical results

of various samples.............................................................. 272Table 24: Comparison between cases of building damage,

morgue and disinfestation chamber ................................... 281

13.2. List of IllustrationsPage

Figure 1: Schematic drawing of the US execution gas chamber in North Carolina ....................................................... 11

Figure 2: How to get rid of termites ................................................15Figure 3: Inky blue stains on the plaster of a church fumigated

with hydrogen cyanide..................................................... 20Figure 4: The Protestant church at Meeder-Wiesenfeld .................. 21Figure 5: Single door to an execution gas chamber for one

single person per gassing procedure (Baltimore,

USA) ................................................................................ 24Figure 6: Door of an alleged National Socialist gas chamber

for the execution of hundreds of persons simultane-ously (crematorium I, Auschwitz) ................................... 24

Figure 7: Frederick A. Leuchter ...................................................... 25Figure 8: Prof. Dr. Robert Faurisson ............................................... 29Figure 9: Prof. Faurisson after an attack by Jewish thugs...............37Figure 10: Map of the surrounding vicinity of Auschwitz dur-

ing the Second World War............................................... 56Figure 11: Map of Auschwitz I/Main Camp (concentration



13. L ISTS

441

camp) ............................................................................... 57Figure 12: Map of POW camp Auschwitz II/Birkenau..................... 58Figure 13: A lice-ridden train enters a railway gassing tunnel in

Budapest .......................................................................... 62Figure 14: DEGESCH delousing chamber with circulation fea-ture ................................................................................... 64

Figure 15: Schematic organization of a hygiene complex ................ 65Figure 16: Typical advertisement of the firm DEGESCH ................ 66Figure 17: Ground plan of the HCN disinfestation wing of

building 5a before building alterations (mirror im-age) and BW 5b today ..................................................... 74

Figure 18: Ground plan of the hot air disinfestation wing of building 5a after building alterations in 1943.................. 75

Figure 19: Ventilation outlets from the disinfestation wing of building BW 5b................................................................ 76

Figure 20: Water pipe system with shower heads in the disin-festation wing of building BW 5b.................................... 78

Figure 21: Ground plan of crematorium I in Auschwitz I/maincamp in its original planning condition ........................... 80

Figure 22: Ground plan of crematorium I Auschwitz I Main

Camp after conversion to air raid shelter......................... 81Figure 23: Ground plan of crematorium I in Auschwitz I/Main

Camp today...................................................................... 82Figure 24f.: Symptoms of decay visible on the interior ceiling of

the morgue of crematorium I in Auschwitz MainCamp................................................................................ 86

Figure 26: Ground plan of morgue 1 (alleged ‘gas chamber’) of Crematoria II and III (mirror symmetrical) in

Auschwitz II/Birkenau..................................................... 92Figure 27: Cross-section of morgue 1 (alleged ‘gas chamber’)

of crematoria II and III (mirror symmetrical) inAuschwitz II/Birkenau..................................................... 92

Figure 28: Schematic location of the new crematorium asoriginally planned for the Auschwitz main camp ............ 95

Figure 29: Schematic location of crematorium II, altered planfor Birkenau..................................................................... 95

Figure 30: “Re.: Auschwitz crematorium […] Caulking work performed for the disinfestation installation” ................ 100Figure 31: “Re: BW: 32 = Disinfestation installation […]




442

Caulking work performed for the disinfestation in-stallation” ....................................................................... 101

Figure 32: “2 Topf disinfestation ovens for crematorium II in

the Prisoner of War Camp, Auschwitz.”........................ 102Figure 33: Wooden disinfestation chamber door at Auschwitz....... 103Figure 34: German air-raid shelter door.......................................... 104Figure 35: Photograph of two indicator devices from the Sie-

mens; component of a gas tester .................................... 112Figure 36: Photograph of crematorium II of Birkenau taken in

February 1943 ................................................................ 114Figure 37: Magnification of detail from Fig. 36 with outlines of

the morgue and scale of measurements drawn in .......... 115Figure 38: Schematic drawing of a view onto morgue 1 of cre-

matorium II .................................................................... 115Figure 39: Photograph of crematorium II from Jan. 20, 1943......... 116Figure 40: Enlargement of Allied air photo RG 373 Can F

5367, exp. 3185 of Birkenau camp, taken on August25, 1944 ......................................................................... 117

Figure 41: Schematic drawing of the air photo in Fig. 40............... 117Figure 42: Schematic drawing of the location and size of the

spots on the roof of morgue 1 (the ‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II ...............................................................118

Figure 43: Interior photograph taken from the ruins of morgue1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II.............................. 119

Figure 44: Alleged Zyklon B introduction hole in the ceiling of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II, entryto the still passable part of the cellar.............................. 120

Figure 45: Ceiling of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II ... 121

Figure 46: Alleged Zyklon B introduction hole in the roof of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium II in De-cember 1991................................................................... 122

Figure 47: Hoop iron with dovetail, cast in cement in a hole inconcrete.......................................................................... 123

Figure 48: Notch (fatigue) effect resulting at inserted openingsfrom the application of force.......................................... 124

Figs. 49-53: The five properly constructed ventilation holes in

the ceiling of the oven room to the upper story, cre-matorium III................................................................... 126Figure 54: J.-C. Pressac’s drawing of the legendary “Zyklon B



13. L ISTS

443

introduction columns”.................................................... 130Figure 55: Handwritten entries in an inventory list of cremato-

rium II for morgue 2 ...................................................... 130

Figure 56: North view and ground plan of crematorium IVand/or V (mirror image) in Auschwitz II/Birkenau ....... 135Figure 57: Then and today—the unchanged ground water state

in the Birkenau camp, here in midsummer 1991 ........... 142Figure 58: White circles: possible sites of old mass graves of

typhus victims in Auschwitz.......................................... 144Figure 59: Interior room in the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of

BW 5a in the Birkenau camp...................color section, 153Figure 60: Exterior wall of the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of

BW 5b in the Birkenau camp...................color section, 153Figure 61: Zyklon B disinfestation installation, chamber III of

barrack 41 in Majdanek camp .................color section, 153Figure 62: Zyklon B disinfestation installation, east wall of

chamber III, barrack 41, Majdanek..........color section, 153Figure 63: Large Zyklon B disinfestation chamber, ceiling, bar-

rack 41 in Majdanek camp.......................color section, 153Figure 64: Zyklon B disinfestation installation, exterior wall of

barrack 41 in Majdanek camp..................color section, 153Figure 65: Zyklon B disinfestation chamber in Stutthof camp,

interior......................................................color section, 154Figure 66: Zyklon B disinfestation chamber in Stutthof camp,

east side, exterior .....................................color section, 154Figure 67: Sketch of morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematorium

II in Birkenau with test sample taking locations byF.A. Leuchter................................................................. 248

Figure 68: The outside of the external wall of hydrogen cya-nide delousing wing of building 5a in August 1991...... 259

Figure 69: Interior room in the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of BW 5a in the Birkenau camp (same as Fig. 59) ............ 260

Figure 70: Picture of the door frame in disinfestation wing of building 5a ..................................................................... 261

Figure 71: Exterior wall of the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of BW 5b in the Birkenau camp (same as Fig. 60) ............ 262

Figure 72: Construction drawing of the experimental container for the fumigation of material samples with hydro-gen cyanide .................................................................... 266




444

Unnumbered:Letter by Michel Adam Nov. 2, 1997................................................ 240

Results of analyses by Institut Fresenius........................................... 256Otto Ernst Remer............................................................................... 353Building of Institut Fresenius ............................................................ 354Viktor Robert Knirsch ....................................................................... 356Hajo Herrmann .................................................................................. 363Letter Moritz Rotberg, Holon, Israel................................................. 364Dr. Herbert Schaller .......................................................................... 366Dr. Joachim Hoffmann ...................................................................... 374Germar Rudolf................................................................................... 421

13.3. List of GraphsPage

Graph 1: Vapor pressure of hydrogen cyanide in percentage of air pressure as a function of temperature ......................... 157

Graph 2: Saturation concentration of hydrogen cyanide in wa-ter as a function of temperature at 1 mol% HCN inthe air ............................................................................... 165

Graph 3: Degree of coverage of the surface of a solid materialwith an adsorbed gas as a function of temperature .......... 167

Graph 4: Degree of disassociation of hydrogen cyanide as afunction of the pH value at room temperature ................. 168

Graph 5: Cyanide equilibrium concentration in water as a func-tion of the temperature and pH value............................... 169

Graph 6: Free Fe³+ concentration as a function of pH value and

the resulting minimal pKS value of Iron Blue ................. 174Graph 7: Accumulated pore volume distribution of concrete

and of wall mortar............................................................ 183Graph 8: Drop in the hydrogen cyanide concentration in old,

dry, cement blocks, after 24-hour fumigation.................. 189Graph 9: Evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide from the Ercco

carrier material ................................................................. 195Graph 10: Schematic representation of the breathing volume

behavior relative to time in case of suffoca-tion/poisoning .................................................................. 213



13. L ISTS

445

Graph 11: Incorporated amount of HCN as function of time un-til respiratory arrest.......................................................... 214

Graph 12: Hydrogen cyanide concentration behavior in delous-

ing chamber with and without circulating air systems..... 216Graph 13: Hydrogen cyanide concentration behavior indisinfestation chamber with and without clothes............. 217

Graph 14: Relation between hydrogen cyanide adsorption onclothing and temperature in a delousing chamber ........... 217

Graph 15: Simulation of the concentration of hydrogen cyanidein a hypothetical homicidal ‘gas chamber’ ...................... 224

13.4. List of Abbreviations

APMO Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum w OswiecimiuDIN Deutsches Institut für NormungDGG Deutschland in Geschichte und GegenwartIMT International Military Tribunal/Internationaler

Militärgerichtshof JHR The Journal of Historical ReviewTCIDK Tsentr Chranenija Istoriko-dokumental’nich Kollektsii

(recently renamed to Rossiskii Gosudarstvennii VojenniiArchiv)

VffG Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung



14. I NDEX

447

14. Index

Names, locations, topics. Entries in footnotes in italics. Topicscovered by certain chapters are not included. Names and locations insource references, in the bibliography and in lists are not included.

— A — absorption: 151 Academy of Sciences, French: 35Adam, Michel: 238Administrative Court, Baden-

Württemberg: 409adsorption: 151 Afghanistan: 297 Allègre, Claude: 239Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung:

359, 368Alpha Analytic Laboratories: 246, 247,

249, 273Amnesty International: 12Andres, Bernhard: 304ANEC: 238ARD

Panorama: 389, 410Report: 383, 387, 388, 389, 390Tagesthemen: 389

ARED GmbH: 293Armontrout, Bill: 14, 26Arolsen: 362Ashland, MA: 246, 249, 273Asia Minor: 60Auschwitz: passim.Auschwitz State Museum: 34, 46, 53, 57,

58, 94, 121, 127 , 129, 136, 152, 245,357

Auschwitz TrialCracow: 42Frankfurt: 44, 45, 46, 139, 317, 346,

353, 359, 360, 361, 365Vienna: 45, 89

Australia: 32, 332Austria: 32, 33, 45, 299, 319, 332, 356,

384Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: 53, 79

— B — Babi Yar: 376Bad Kissingen, Germany: 316, 337, 352Bahners, Patrick: 325, 326, 327Bailer, Josef: 33, 34, 211, 212, 248, 252,

269, 270Balkan: 60Ball, John Clive: 119, 145, 246, 268, 272,

294Baltimore: 24Barford, engineer: 129Barzel, Rainer: 414Bastian, Till: 338 Baumann, prosecutor: 356, 359, 364, 405Bautzen: 367Bavarian Ministry of the Interior: 180Bayern 1 radio: 356Beethoven, Ludwig van: 50Belgium: 32 Bendel, Charles S.: 203, 206 Benroubi, Maurice: 139Benz, Wolfgang: 375Berg, Friedrich Paul: 128, 242, 294Berglar, Peter: 414Berlin: 66, 67, 138, 304, 307, 366

Olypmics: 73Wall: 306

Berlin Blue: 158, 251Besnard, Marie: 40BET: 181Bielefeld: 405Birkenau: passim.

family camp: 50, 58gypsy camp: 58Hungarian camp: 58 pond: 142

Bischoff, Karl: 98, 110Blobel, Paul: 376 blue cloud in 'gas chamber': 203, 204, 236




448

Blüm, Norbert: 306Bock, Ludwig: 331Böck, Richard: 139, 197, 199, 203, 204,

205, 353, 354, 361, 362

bones: 46, 145Boston, MA: 23, 245Brauner, Aze: 349British National Party: 399Broad, Pery S.: 79, 86, 139, 346Broszat, Martin: 199, 201Bubis, Ignatz: 393, 394, 407, 408Buchenwald: 29Buchy, France: 20Bühler, Karlheinz: 416

Buki, Milton: 139Bulgaria: 201Bünde, north Germany: 404Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv: 293Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende

Schriften: 295, 377, 379, 380Bundeswehr: 307, 370Buser, H.J.: 159, 164Butz, Arthur R.: 29, 31, 278

— C — Canada: 23, 32, 119, 332Canada I: 68capillary condensation: 157carbon monoxide: 20, 241, 243Cartell-Verband der katholischen

deutschen Studentenverbindungen:414

CDU: 297, 305, 306, 307, 395Charbonnages de France: 238

chemisorption: 151 Christmann, Carl Hermann: 22, 123, 275,294

Church of the Holy Juraj, Croatia: 17CIA: 119city gas: 179, 241, 242, 243Clarke, Bernard: 197coke gas: 241Cole, David: 49, 51common knowledge: 197, 199, 202, 331,

347, 348, 356, 358, 359, 360, 361,362, 363, 364, 365, 367, 411Conan, Eric: 84

concentration: 155 Countess, Elda: 294Countess, Robert H.: 294, 422County Court

Berlin Tiergarten: 295, 378Böblingen: 295, 378, 379Munich: 295, 338, 378, 380Stuttgart: 410Tübingen: 295, 324, 325, 369, 377,

381, 389Weinheim: 295, 378

Court Toronto: 25, 26Cracow, Poland: 34, 46crematoria II/III: chapter 5.4.1., and

passim.crematoria IV/V: chapter 5.4.2., and passim.

crematorium I: chapter 5.3., and passim.Croatia: 16Crowell, Samuel: 106CSU: 297, 298, 301, 395Czech, Danuta: 51, 68, 114Czechoslovakia: 298, 299

— D — Dachau: 65, 152, 347, 348, 358, 363, 364Damon, James M.: 294Deana, Franco: 244Deckert, Günter: 326, 330, 370, 411, 412Degesch: 24, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 74, 194,

195, 216, 244Kreislaufverfahren: 63, 64, 65, 70, 72,

108, 132, 137 , 152, 216, 217, 218Degussa AG: 171, 293, 388

Dejaco, Walter: 45, 89Delta, B.C.: 246Demjanjuk, John: 348Der Spiegel: 148, 206 , 352 Detia Freyberg GmbH: 293Detscher: 338 Deutsche Ausrüstungs-Werke: 68, 110Deutsche Presseagentur: 17, 179, 180,

273, 383, 385, 386, 387, 390, 394,396, 398, 400, 401, 413

Deutschland Report: 384, 412Diesel engine exhaust: 241, 242dispersion: 159



14. I NDEX

449

dissociation: 160 District and Chamber Court of Berlin: 358District Court

Bielefeld: 338

Hamburg: 331Mannheim: 411Munich: 338 Schweinfurt: 334, 352, 356Stuttgart: 295, 306, 316 , 324, 332,

340, 345, 346, 349, 384, 389, 390,392, 394, 402, 411, 412, 416

Diwald, Hellmut: 294Dominguez, Scott: 18doors, gas-tight: 24, 63, 82, 83, 103, 104,

105, 137, 263Dora-Mittelbau: 29Dragan, Myroslaw: 143, 294Dragon, Szlama: 139Drahtnetzeinschubvorrichtungen = wire

mesh push-in devices: 114, 131Dreßen, Willy: 204Dwork, Deborah: 52, 85Dyba, Archbishop Johannes: 414dynamite: 157

— E — East Prussia: 272, 298, 371Ebeling, Dieter: 386, 387Ehrenburg, Ilya: 349, 374, 375, 376Eichmann, Adolf: 242Einsatzgruppen: 40, 373Einsatzkommando: 376Elias, Allan: 18Engelhard, Hans. A: 300, 357

England: 398, 399, 400, 401, 418, 421Ercco, Zyklon B: 194, 195Ertl, Fritz: 45, 89Evans, Sheila: 399, 400Evergreen Resources: 18experimental gas chamber: 265, 266

— F — Fabius-Gayssot, law: 32 Faith, Linda M.: 294

farmhouses: 1, 55, 137, 139, 140, 141,146, 204, 208, 227, 232, 234, 287, 290Faßbender, R.: 123, 294

fat, humanfor cremation: 199, 200, 201, 202, 237for soap: 349

Faurisson, Robert: 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31,

37, 42, 46, 84, 88, 104, 129, 133, 149,293, 336, 339, 340

FDP: 305, 306, 307, 308Federal Constitutional Court, German:

326, 327, 328, 385Federal Supreme Court, German: 324,

331, 333, 334, 341, 345, 385, 397, 412Fick’s law of diffusion: 228Filbinger, Hans: 309 Fischer, Konrad: 21, 280, 294

flamescremation pits: 145, 204, 234, 287crematorium chimney: 202, 203, 237

Fleckfieber: 59 Fleißner, Herbert: 318Florence, AZ: 12Flury, Ferdinand: 192Forschungs- und Materialprüfungsanstalt,

Stuttgart: 183, 293Forschungsinstitut für Pigmente und

Lacke e.V.: 293Förster, Gerhard: 294France: 238Franciszek Piper: 49, 81, 136, 357Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial: 197Frankfurt, Germany: 302, 307, 366Free University of Berlin: 371Freiburg, Germany: 293, 370, 372Friedmann, Bernhard: 306Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince von

Hohenzollern: 414Fuetterer, Andrew: 294

— G — Garbarz, Moshe Maurice: 139Gärtner, Michael: 142, 144, 294gas chamber: passim.Gassing Cellar: 96, 97Gauss, Ernst: 369, 371, 373, 375, 376,

379, 381, 393

Geißler, Heiner: 306Genscher, Hans-Dietrich: 299, 356German Democratic Republic: 367




450

Germany: 32 Ginsburg, Josef: 29Glücks, Richard: 110Göbel, Klaus: 294

Goebbels, Joseph: 373Gottschalk, Thomas: 414Grabert Verlag: 327, 371Grabert, Wigbert: 369, 370Graf, Jürgen: 381Green, Richard J.: 276, 277, 278, 279Griffin, Nick: 399Grimm, Carl T.: 17Grinnell College: 17Grinnell Regional Medical Center: 17

Gross, Johannes: 404GRÜNE: 305, 417Guarantee Fumigation Company: 15

— H — Habsburg, Otto von: 414hair: 41, 42, 43, 46, 274hair clasps: 42, 43hair cut: 54, 64, 207Haller, E.: 355

Hamburg: 386, 417Hansa Luftbild: 362Hastings, Chris: 398, 399, 400Hastings, East Sussex: 398, 400, 401hatches, gas-tight: 136Haverbeck, Werner Georg: 294, 338 Heepke, Wilhem: 108Hepp, Robert: 294Herrmann, Hajo: 294, 313, 333, 334, 337,

353, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 365

Herzogenrath-Amelung, Günther: 294,417 Hilberg, Raul: 359, 381Himmler, Heinrich: 373Hinsley, Francis H.: 361Hitler, Adolf: 30, 37, 271, 278, 300, 303,

304, 312, 316, 360, 373, 409Hoerbst, Günther: 401Höfer, Werner: 309 Hoffmann, Joachim: 294, 370, 371, 374,

377Höffner, Josef Cardinal: 414Holocaust Survivors and Friends in

Pursuit of Justice: 27Holon, Israel: 364Honsik, Gerd: 338, 356Höß, Rudolf: 79, 86, 139, 197, 199, 200,

201, 206 , 346, 363Höttl, Wilhelm: 374Humphrey, Michael: 294Hundseder, Franziska: 388, 390, 410Hungarian Jews: 140Hungary: 32, 201Hupka, Herbert: 414Huta: 89, 90, 91, 96Hydrokop: 46Hygieneinstitut der Waffen-SS: 66

— I — I.G. Farbenindustrie AG: 53, 56, 154, 242,

243Institut Fresenius: 246, 247, 252, 254,

255, 258, 293, 320, 354, 357, 361,383, 388, 408

Institut für Umweltanalytik: 293Institut für Zeitgeschichte: 33, 44, 121,

313, 317

Institute for Historical Review: 25Irmscher, Richard: 194, 195, 196, 224Iron Blue: passimIrving, David: 36, 129, 273, 274, 338, 401Israel: 50, 347, 348, 362, 364, 369

— J — Jährling, Rudolf: 72, 113Jail fever: 59 Jakobovits, Immanuel: 367

Jan Sehn Institute, Cracow: 34, 42, 43, 44,46, 245, 246, 250, 251, 270, 277, 279,357, 412

Jefferson City: 14, 26Jenninger, Philipp: 309, 414Jerusalem: 348, 349Jerusalem Post: 49Jettingen: 398, 415Junge Union: 306Jungen Freiheit: 310, 313

Jury Court, Frankfurt: see



14. I NDEX

451

— K — Kahlenbergerdorf, Autria: 356Kammerer, Rüdiger: 379Kammler, Hans: 71

Karl, Otto: 294Karlsruhe: 104Katyn: 41, 42, 358Kelkheim, Germany: 181, 293Khan, Genghis: 37Kiefer, Markus: 415 Klarsfeld, Beate: 26Knirsch, Viktor Robert: 356Knödler, Heinz: 294Kogon, Eugen: 312, 359

Kohl, Helmut: 306Köhler, Manfred: 379Kohn, M.: 176Königsberg, East Prussia: 298, 371Konrad, Christian: 338 Konrich, Friedrich: 60Körber, Hermann: 404, 405, 406Kosovo: 40, 41Kremer, Johann Paul: 139Kretschmer, Werner: 338

Krleza, F.: 173, 175Kula, Michal: 130, 131, 133, 192, 196Kulaszka, Barbara: 26Kyiv, Ukrain: 376

— L — Labor Court Stuttgart: 388Lachout, Emil: 294LaGrand, Walter: 12lampshades made of human skin: 349

Langbein, Hermann: 360Langmuire: 167Lawson, David: 11LD100: 193 Le Monde: 30, 359Leipprand, Horst: 294Lettich, André: 139Leuchter Report: 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34,

36, 310, 312, 357Leuchter, Frederick A.: 13, 14, 23, 25, 26,

27, 34, 46, 91, 141, 149, 154, 193,245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253,258, 272, 273, 274, 276, 288, 312,

330, 338, 357, 390, 406ligand: 164 Limburg, Germany: 421Lipstadt, Deborah E.: 36, 129, 273, 401

Lober, Jochen: 404London Agreement: 198London, England: 178, 398Los Angeles: 15Lovran, Croatia: 17Lübeck, Germany: 387, 388Lublin: see Majdanek Lüftl, Walter: 21, 294Luftwaffe: 313, 421Lummert, Horst: 394

— M — Maier, Sonnhild: 392Majdanek: 23, 25, 99, 153, 274, 358, 380Markiewicz, Jan: 34, 245, 246, 250, 251,

270, 271, 272, 273, 278, 279, 294Mattogno, Carlo: 95, 97, 110, 113, 125,

130, 140, 143, 144, 153, 154, 244,245, 294, 381

Max-Planck-Corporation, Munich: 384,

385, 386, 407, 408, 413Max-Planck-Institute for Solid StateResearch, Stuttgart: 39, 46, 295, 321,322, 367, 383, 385, 393, 407, 408,409, 413, 421

Mayer, Arno J.: 360Mayer, Dietmar: 411, 414, 417 Meinecke, Albert: 180, 273, 385, 386Mexico: 60Meyer, Fritjof: 148, 352

Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt: 370,371, 372, 376Ministry of Justice, Baden-Württemberg:

327Mohler, Armin: 308, 309, 310mol: 165 Monowitz: 53, 243Montérolier: 20Mösbauer, Rudolf: 158Moscow: 53, 94, 362

Munich: 44, 353, 379Murphy, Kim: 401




452

— N — Nantes: 238 National Front: 398, 399 Neumaier, Arnulf: 294

New South Wales, Australia: 50 Niyszli, Milkos: 203, 206 NKVD: 373 Nolte, Ernst: 294northern Africa: 60 Nowak, Hans Jürgen: 105 NPD: 302, 303, 330nucleophilic: 161 Nuremberg: 404 Nuremberg Tribunal: 40, 198, 199, 211,

212, 358, 359, 363, 365, 367, 374

— O — ÖDP: 307Orlet, Rainer: 330, 369

— P — Paris: 31 partial pressure: 165 Payer, judge Dr.: 378

Pechiney-Ugine-Kuhlmann: 238Pelt, Robert Jan van: 35, 36, 46, 52, 85,

91, 99, 110, 127, 128, 129, 130, 226,274, 278

Peters, Gerhard: 62 pH: 162 Philipp, Karl: 153, 293, 316 , 337, 338 phosgene: 241 photolysis: 177 physisorption: 151

Pilsen: 299 pK S: 172 Placentia, CA: 17Pocatello, ID: 18Poland: 23, 32, 34, 42, 49, 53, 79, 243,

246, 272, 273, 298, 299, 373Political Asylum: 418Pomerania: 272Porter, Carlos: 294Post, Walter: 294

Prague, Czechia: 53Pressac, Jean-Claude: 33, 36, 46, 51, 52,

53, 68, 69, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 93, 94,

97, 99, 105, 108, 114, 116, 122, 124,127, 130, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138,139, 141, 201, 203, 205, 206, 207,208, 211, 212, 226, 232, 233, 234,

245, 249, 287, 346, 350 process gas: 241, 242, 243 producer gas: 241, 242 protolysis: 168 Provan, Charles D.: 129, 130, 294Prowazek, scientist: 59Prüfer, Kurt: 98Prussian Blue: 152, 178. = Iron Blue

— Q —

quantum efficiency: 177

— R — Rademacher, Werner: 105, 113, 138, 143,

144Rahm, Director: 364Rajsko: 66Raleigh, NC: 11, 194Ranke, Leopold: 37Rassinier, Paul: 29, 308

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal: 414Ravensbrück: 238Reich. Harald: 294Reitlinger, Gerald: 359Rembiszewski, Sarah: 417Remer Depesche: 355, 357, 358, 384, 405,

406, 412Remer, Anneliese: 316, 322Remer, Otto Ernst: 246, 293, 313, 316,

317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324,

333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339,341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349,351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358,359, 361, 362, 366, 367, 368, 369,383, 384, 393, 395, 396, 405, 406,407, 409, 411

Republikaner: 301, 302, 304, 305, 306,307, 308, 313

Resistance, French: 29, 308Reynouard, Vincent: 239

Ricketts, scientist: 59Rickettsia: 59Rieger, Jürgen: 294, 331



14. I NDEX

453

Rijeka, Croatia: 17Rocker, Stefan: 387, 389Roding, Germany: 336, 337Romania: 201

Roth, James: 246, 247, 273, 274, 275, 276Roubeix, Gérard: 238, 239Rückerl, Adalbert: 44 Rudolf, Georg Hermann: 418 Rudolf, Germar: 46, 245, 247, 252, 254,

255, 272, 276, 279, 290, 371, 372.chapter 11

Rudolf, Ursula: 414 Russia: 60

campaign WWI: 59

campaign WWII: 53government: 41

— S — Sachsenhausen: 88 Sarin: 241Sassmannshausen, Jörg: 407SAT 1 TV: 407Saxony: 305Schaller, Herbert: 294, 319, 358, 360, 365,

366, 367Scheel, Dr.: 346, 356Schlee, Emil: 294Schmidt, Robert F.: 232Schnering, Hans Georg von: 318, 407,

409, 410 Scholz, Rainer: 338 Schreiber, Walter: 89, 106Schwaibold, Frank: 393, 394, 395Schweinfurt, Germany: 358, 405

Sedlatschek: 416Seine-Maritime: 20Self-Evidentness: 373, 374, 375Serbia: 297 Shapiro, Shelly: 26shower heads: 97, 235showers: 96, 97, 98, 99, 219, 220, 235Siebenbürger, judge: 353, 356, 359, 364Siemens: 112Silesia: 272, 299

Simon, Arndt: 407skingreen/blue of gassing victims: 131,

192, 236lampshades made of human: 349 poisoning through: 14, 20, 191, 192,

218, 232, 233, 236

Sleipnir: 378, 412Slough, England: 178smoke

from cremation pits: 140, 145, 204,234, 287

from crematorium chimney: 237smoking in ‘gas chamber’: 199soap

from Jewish fat: 349, 375in ‘gas chamber’: 220

Sobibor: 242Sola river: 141Soldat im Volk: 354Solms, Armin: 379solubility product: 172 Sonderbehandlung: 109, 110, 417Sonderkommando: 98, 199, 201, 202, 208,

232, 234, 236, 287, 290Sorbonne: 31 Soulié, Louis: 20

Spain: 32, 316 SPD: 305, 306, 307Special Treatment: 109, 110, 417Spotted Fever: 59 St. Avold: 238Stäglich, Wilhelm: 312, 328, 336Stahl, Alexander von: 414Stalin, Joseph: 42, 349, 358, 374Stalingrad: 93State Security Department, German: 383

Stein, Burkhardt: 369, 377Steinenbronn, Germany: 384, 416stern magazine: 407Stingl, Josef: 414Stomper, Herbert: 415 Strauß, Franz-Josef: 297, 298, 301, 368,

369, 414Strauß, Marianne: 368Stromberger, Wilhelm: 110Stuparek: 356Stuttgart: 31, 39, 180, 183, 245, 247, 258,

293, 325, 383, 385Süddeutscher Rundfunk: 391, 394




Sudeten: 298, 299, 316Südwestfunk: 391, 392, 394, 395suspension: 159 Süssmuth, Rita: 306

Switzerland: 32 synagogue: 387

— T — Tabun: 241tageszeitung: 359Tananaev, I.V.: 172, 173, 174, 175Tarrassevich: 60tartrate: 175 Tauber, Henryk: 122, 199, 201, 202, 203

Taunusstein: 246, 254, 293, 383Tel Aviv: 323, 401, 417Tesch und Stabenow: 113Teschner, Susanne: 369Thomas Dehler Stiftung: 404thought criminal: 351Töben, Fredrick: 125, 294, 331 Topf & Söhne: 97, 98, 99, 102, 107, 111,

112, 113, 133Toronto: 23, 245, 274

towelsin ‘gas chamber’: 220Treblinka: 358, 363, 381

Upper District CourtDüsseldorf: 358, 359Munich: 338

Upper Silesia: 51, 53, 177, 243, 244

USSR: 40, 299, 359, 362

— V — VARTA Batterie AG: 181, 293Vecernji List: 17VEDAG Vereinigte Dachpappen-

Fabriken Aktiengesellschaft: 98, 99Ventilation: 107, 145, 146, 221, 222, 223,

234, 237, 294accident: 17

crematorium I: 80, 82, 83, 86, 200crematorium II/III: 92, 106, 107, 108,

110, 111, 214, 223, 224, 225, 226,227, 234, 276, 287, 290

crematorium IV/V: 136, 137, 232,287, 290

disinfestation: 63, 78, 112, 145, 227,235

farmhouses: 232, 287, 290homicidal chamber: 145, 211, 227,

228, 230, 236, 237, 244homicidal chambers: 220short circuit: 223, 234